Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts :
1. Coal Industry Act 1987
2. Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987
3. West Glamorgan Act 1987
4. County of Cleveland Act 1987

PRIVATE BUSINESS

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL (By Order)

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 12 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Fire Authorities (Staffing)

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review staffing levels in fire authorities; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We are currently reviewing the staffing levels of the seven fire and civil defence authorities as part of the process of making and approving their establishment schemes for 1987–88. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Fire and Civil Defence Authorities (Establishment, Support Services and Management Schemes) Regulations 1985. More generally, the staffing levels in fire authorities are among the matters considered by Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services during their annual inspections of brigades. Where appropriate Her Majesty's inspectors give advice to us and to fire authorities about the effective, efficient and economic use of resources.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Minister effectively announcing a cut in the staffing levels of fire authorities by not giving sufficient finance for them even to maintain their present staffing and training levels? Is he aware, for example, that

south Yorkshire—an area that traditionally has had good standards — because of the present financial restrictions will be 124 fire fighters short even of his Department's own statutory levels? Why does the Minister put people at risk in that way?

Mr. Hogg: There is no question of people being put at risk. In south Yorkshire, the authority will have no difficulty providing adequate cover. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, in the west midlands, an area which concerns him most intimately, expenditure for the coming year, as implied by the maximum precept, is 7·6 per cent. above last year's budget. That is substantially in excess of the rate of inflation and significantly in excess of the cost of the fire workers' pay settlement. In the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's observations are a trifle ungenerous.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware that morale in the Shropshire fire service was extremely high when I visited it on Monday and that its response to the rail crash in Shropshire on Monday night was extremely efficient? Will he take this opportunity to thank employers in rural areas who enable retained part-time firemen to take time off from their business duties to help those in rural areas who do not have the full-time fire service that is available in built-up areas?

Mr. Hogg: I greatly welcome what my hon. Friend said. I am sure that his visit was much appreciated by the firemen in his area. I entirely agree with what he said about retained firemen who make a significant contribution to fire cover in his area and, indeed, in my constituency of Grantham.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that we in west Yorkshire are prepared to accept staffing levels and levels of service that are laid down by his Department, but is he aware also that the Secretary of State for the Environment refuses to allow a sufficient precept level to enable the county to maintain the staffing levels and levels of services that are set by the Home Office? How does the Minister reconcile that?

Mr. Hogg: We are wholly satisfied that the standard of cover in west Yorkshire is adequate for the purpose of providing an adequate fire service.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend examine the cost of council involvement in fire and civil defence authorities? In greater Manchester, for example, there are five committees, all with various sub-committees, involved in what would appear to be a service that should virtually run itself.

Mr. Hogg: I shall always consider any submission that my hon. Friends care to make to me on this and related matters. In Manchester there is no problem as the expenditure increase implied by the precept is more than generous.

Mr. Dubs: Apart from the fact that both west Yorkshire and south Yorkshire cannot reach the fire cover standards of the Home Office, will the Minister confirm that as part of the review there are plans to reduce the opening hours of fire stations in many areas from 24 hours to nine, and that one of them is Godstone fire station, which provides a vital service to the M25? If the cuts are implemented, they will result in serious danger to life.

Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Expenditure increases for 1987–88, as implied by the precepts, are in a band of 7·5 per cent. of 6·1 per cent. over the 1986–87 budget. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a particular fire station. If he requires an answer on that, he must table a specific question.

Crimes Against the Elderly

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in respect of each year since 1978, what were the numbers of crimes known to his Department to have been committed against persons over 60 years.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Mellor): The only information I can give the hon. Member comes from a survey carried out in 1984. This suggests that, in England and Wales that year, some 13,000 people aged 60 or over were victims of violent crime, which represented 7 per cent. of the total of 182,000 such offences.

Mr. Fisher: Does not the Minister understand that those figures suggest that elderly people have had seven years of misery under this Government? Many elderly people are genuinely anxious about stepping outside their homes and are afraid to go out at night. What does the Minister intend to do about that? Will he discuss the problem with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that the basics are done, that estates are properly lit, that secure locks are placed on doors and that there are decent social services to support elderly people? Unless that is done, more elderly people will live in more and more misery.

Mr. Mellor: Of course, all those things are happening. Some 6,000 places on this year's community programme—with an expenditure of £40 million—are involved in providing such protection for pensioners' homes. Another scheme has been introduced allowing basic protection to be installed for under £40. There is also provision for a wide range of other assistance for the elderly. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, of course, a great deal of what he is asking for is the responsibility of local authorities. Conservative authorities, such as my authority in Wandsworth, provide such things for the elderly. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed what happened in Greenwich and Knowsley and recognise that local authorities have fallen down on their responsbilities. That is not the Government's responsibility.

Mr. Cash: Has my hon. Friend noted the recent disgraceful and appalling murder of two ladies in their 80s and 90s? Will he take note of the very strong feeling on the Conservative Benches for the reintroduction of capital punishment?

Mr. Mellor: Obviously, opinions about the remedy will vary. I gather that we shall have the opportunity to debate this matter at a later date. I deplore those murders and deplore the circumstances wherein elderly people are put at risk.

Mr. George Howarth: Does the Minister accept that if authorities like Knowsley were given resources to protect elderly people they would dearly love to do that job?

Mr. Mellor: That is a pathetic excuse. It hardly washed with the hon. Gentleman's electorate and it will not wash in here.

Mr. Dickens: Is the Minister aware that the two elderly spinsters, Susan and Florence Egerton, aged 92 and 81, who were savagely and barbarically killed, lived in my constituency? Does the Minister believe that the state is sufficiently protecting its citizens? Will he pay particular regard to the initiatives that I have sent to the Home Office? Will he also pay particular regard to the way he votes on the clause for the reintroduction of capital punishment when the Criminal Justice Bill returns to the House this month?

Mr. Mellor: The Government are extremely solicitous about the welfare of elderly people and everyone else in relation to violent crime. For that reason, the resources available to the police have been increased, represented by an extra 15,500 officers over the past seven years. A great deal has been done to strengthen the penalties available for violent offences and the availability of parole to violent offenders has been restricted. The spiralling growth of neighbourhood watch schemes means that people are able to protect themselves by taking a communual interest in one another's welfare. We shall continue to pursue those policies.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are the figures that the Minister has just given duff figures in relation to Kent? Have they been doctored by the Kent constabulary? In the light of yesterday's news that someone else has come forward to reaffirm that the clear-up figures in Kent were doctored, what action do the Government intend to take or is the issue again to be dumped?

Mr. Mellor: I am not sure what tenuous link this has with the main question. The Police Complaints Authority is investigating the matter and I can say nothing more.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I share the abhorrence expressed by my hon. Friends at the murders of the two people concerned but, does my hon. Friend appreciate that many of us do not believe that the return of capital punishment is the answer?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, and I am one of them.

Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister appreciate that behind the ever-rising crime figures are literally millions of elderly people living in terror behind their front doors, especially in inner city areas? Will he reconsider making crime prevention grants available to help those at risk and those with most to fear so as better to ensure their safety?

Mr. Mellor: I have already detailed the enormous amount of work that the Government are doing through development of the community programme and through issuing advice to the elderly about basic security methods that cost under £40 to employ. I appreciate that as part of its policy of trying to bribe the electorate with their own money the Labour party has come up with a scheme for home security grants, but there is no sign of how it would be able to afford it, and one suspects that there is no prospect of its coming about.

Mr. Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend think that the over-60s would be better protected if the police were placed under the political control of councillors such as Bernie Grant and starved of resources as they were last time the Labour party was in power?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. and learned Friend is, as always, quite right.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret that the next question to be answered today, through a printer's error, which I have asked to be investigated, has been left off the Order Paper. It is in the name of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) and I ask him to read out the text before the Minister replies.

Fresh Start

Mr. Tom Cox: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions his Department has had with the Prison Officers Association on fresh start; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Officials have had extensive discussions with representatives of the Prison Officers Association about fresh start in recent months. I myself had a constructive meeting with the national chairman and the general secretary of the association last Monday, when I was able to welcome the national executive committee's recent decision to allow branches to co-operate with development exercises under way in prisons. I hope to announce shortly a revised offer to all the trade unions concerned, as a basis for an agreed implementation of fresh start.

Mr. Cox: I welcome the Home Secretary's reply, but the fact that he is revising his proposals is surely ample evidence that the original proposals were not good enough for what he is attempting to persuade the prison officers to accept? If fresh start is to have any success, is he aware that there must be substantial increases in staffing levels in prisons and a realistic pay settlement without the conditions that fresh start sought to impose?

Mr. Hurd: We have proposed to revise our offer in the light of the discussions that we have had with the unions concerned, including the POA. I hope that that will lead to agreed implementation, which is crucial. More staff will continue to be required, but we must get away from the present system, which relies far too much on overtime and, as we know, means that about 15 per cent. of the money that Parliament votes for the running of prisons is wasted. With the fresh start proposals, we shall be able to put together a reformed prison service with much more reasonable practices and much better terms of service for all those who work within it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that prison officers carry out a difficult job, often in difficult circumstances. Does he agree that he went to the nub of the problem when he talked about overtime? Will he try to ensure that in the new deal which I hope will be negotiated prison officers will not lose pay as overtime is phased out and the new pay arrangements are introduced? That is important. Unless that assurance can be given, there will be continuing difficulty.

Mr. Hurd: Obviously, one of the features of the package must be an understanding about take-home pay as overtime is reduced. To return my hon. Friend's compliment, that is exactly the nub of the negotiations. When we put the revised offer to the POA—I hope that that will take place shortly—I hope that it will recognise the valiant efforts that we have made to meet the points put to me by the POA and by my hon.Friend.

Immigration

Mr. John Mark Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning recent irregular attempts to gain entry to the United Kingdom, particularly by persons who destroyed their passports en route.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I have received various representations on this issue from Members of the House, from the general public, and from organisations involved in refugee matters in this country.

Mr. Taylor: Is not the destruction of passports a clear sign of bad faith on the part or such people? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of my constituents will have misgivings about the measures that he is introducing? It is not that they do not want them, but they cannot understand why I hey have taken so long.

Mr. Waddington: The simple answer is that the situation has got much worse in the past year or two. There have been more irregular movements and forged documents, and more abusive applications. To use the language of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were 150,000 irregular movements in Europe in 1985–86. In Belgium, where the UNHCR decides who are refugees and who are not, its advice cannot be accused of being biased. It had no fewer than 7,500 applications for refugee status and granted only 52. In this country, in February alone, 233 applications were made at the ports for refugee status, 185 by people with false documents.

Mr. Madden: Has the Minister had any second thoughts on the revised procedures that he outlined recently on the basis of the serious criticisms made of those revised procedures by people with long experience of trying to help those trying to seek political asylum in this country?

Mr. Waddington: We made it plain that people claiming asylum must have no expectation that their cases are bound to be referred to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. The present arrangements do not involve reference in all cases. That is quite clear from my letter to Lord Avebury of I August 1983, and in future there will be cases where early removal will be essential and no reference will be made. There will be a meeting with UKIAS, but it will not be possible to spell out all the circumstances in which reference will not be made, so intending claimants will have no legitimate expectation that their cases will be heard.

Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look into the allegation that I have sent to him that photographs are removed from British visitors' passports sold in post offices when the gum is still wet and later replaced by photographs of other persons? Will he see what can be done to stop this?

Mr. Waddington: I invite my hon. Friend to let me have full details of that allegation. I will certainly look at that with all care and expedition.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister believe that the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service or the British Refugee Council would connive in facilitating the entry of irregular visitors?

Mr. Waddington: All I know is that a few days had elapsed before an order was made by a court and two weeks had elapsed by the time that my right hon. Friend made his statement in this House. There is no doubt whatsoever that by the time that my right hon. Friend made his statement we were caught in what many people might describe as a legal morass. Goodness knows how long it would have taken us to extricate ourselves from it.
I must tell right hon. and hon. Members who are for ever saying that they are in favour of firm control, but as soon as there is any evasion of that control they say that they are unable or unwilling to do anything about it, that one of the main problems in this area is that if there is delay in removing people, very often the opportunity for removing them is lost for all time. No fewer than 17 Tamils were returned to southern India in the past month or two and were sent back by the Indians on the argument that they had been longer in this country while our procedures were followed than they had been in India.

Mr. Watts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people consider it ludicrous that those who seek to enter our country by deception should have access to UKIAS, a body funded by the British taxpayer, which can then help them in persisting in their deception?

Mr. Waddington: I have made it absolutely plain where we stand on this matter. The present arrangements do not involve the reference of all cases to UKIAS. There are bound to be circumstances and cases where, in the interests of firm immigration control, it will not be right to refer cases.

Mr. Nellist: The Minister of State said some minutes ago that the situation had become much worse over the past two years. Does he not recognise that that is because the situation in Sri Lanka has become much worse in the past two years? Did he not see the report in yesterday morning's London Daily News, which reported that 60 British mercenaries recruited by KMS, many of them ex-SAS officers, have resigned from training the Sri Lankan army—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into that. This question is about passports destroyed en route to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nellist: Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a later question on that point.

Mr. Nellist: Mr. Speaker, several times in the Minister of State's replies he referred to Tamils at Heathrow. The question arises—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must complete his question and make it relevant to Question No. 3.

Mr. Nellist: The reason why people have destroyed passports when trying to enter this country, given the worsening situation in Sri Lanka, was evidenced by the fact that those 60 ex-SAS mercenaries, none of them soft, resigned because—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Waddington.

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not have the faintest idea how refugees arrive in this country. The vast majority of people who apply for refugee status in this country have been here for a long time. They

entered this country as visitors or students and then decided that they did not want to go back to their own countries or they are people who have made applications to our posts abroad. In the case of Sri Lankans, applications are actually made at our high commission at Colombo into which any Tamil can walk and outside of which only one policeman stands. It is the most natural thing in the world for a genuine refugee to go to the nearest safe place and not travel three quarters of the way around the world.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend receives many representations from Opposition Members. Can he tell us how many he has received about the inhumanity of the Sri Lankan regime which—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is also wide of the destruction of passports.

Mr. Howarth: How many representations has my right hon. and learned Friend received about conditions in Sri Lanka?

Mr. Waddington: I cannot answer that question now, but if my hon. Friend tables a question to that effect, I shall do my best to answer it. I can tell him, however, that my postbag has been heavy during the past week or two with letters from constituents and others saying that it is about time that the Government did something about evident abuse.

Sentencing Policy

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received seeking legislation to impose minimum sentences for certain crimes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: I have received such representations from some hon. Members and members of the public, but we believe that minimum sentences would hinder the courts' ability to take account of the widely varying circumstances of particular cases.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of public concern about the present statistics for England and Wales for 1985, which show that the average sentence served in prison by people guilty of murder is 10 years, by those guilty of manslaughter 21 months, by those guilty of rape 20 months, and those guilty of wounding five months? How can we convince the general public that we really intend to crack down on the perpetrators of these terrible crimes if the sentences given in court are reduced to such minimal periods in prison?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend will know that there is a lot going on in the direction which he seeks. He will know that this Parliament has increased the maximum sentences available to courts for a range of violent offences such as attempted rape and now, in the Criminal Justice Bill, the possession of firearms for the purpose of crime. He will know the system of guideline judgments and he may well have seen the figures that have recently been published, which show how the sentences for rape have increased since the Lord Chief Justice gave his guidelines in the Billam sentences.
My hon. Friend will know what we are doing in clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with the dangers of allegedly over-lenient sentences, He will also know that I


am continuing the system announced by my predecessor under which parole is not normally granted for violent offenders who are serving more than five years, and that the most serious murderers will expect to serve at least 20 years.
We have a range of measures which distinguish between the violent offenders, to whom my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, and less violent offenders who choke up our prisons and for whom non-custodial sentences would sometimes be better.

Mr. Ron Brown: Since Saunders and Co. of Guinness fame make the Great Train Robbers look like petty thieves, will the Home Secretary ensure that the real crooks—the financial crooks—get a minimum of 30 years in gaol, or is this too sensitive a subject for the Tory party? Do the Government protect their own kind?

Mr. Hurd: One of the distinguishing features of the Government's programme is the attention that we have paid to serious fraud. If the hon. Gentleman had been a member of the Committee considering the Criminal Justice Bill, he would have seen how we have pressed forward stricter measures and how they have been greeted tepidly, and sometimes with resistance, by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people in Britain are worried about violent crime and that we want mandatory minimum sentences for some of the more revolting crimes?

Mr. Hurd: I know that there is a feeling to that effect, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider that, if Parliament set about trying to work out minimum sentences which would apply in all cases, however much there were mitigating circumstances, we would either turn up a figure which was so low — because it would have to take account of every conceivable mitigating circumstances—that our constituents would think we had gone dotty, or we would pitch on a higher figure, which would mean that people would start to be acquitted when there were mitigating circumstances even though they had committed a serious offence. I do not think that we want either of those things to happen.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that senior police officers, when questioned about what is the most effective deterrent to crime, do not talk about sentencing but about the certainty of being caught? They have told me that again and again, and as recently as last weekend. That being so, when will the Government take action to increase the clear-up rate from its record low level of 35 per cent. to which it has sunk by 17 per cent. since the Government came to office? What is the use to talking about sentences when, under the Tory Government, two out of three criminals get away with their crime?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to notice that the question is about violent crime. He will be glad to hear because he does not seem to know — [Interruption.] My hon. Friend's supplementary was about violent crime, and the clear-up rates are much higher for crimes of violence. They are 73 per cent. for violence and 72 per cent. for sexual offences, and in all the circumstances those are reasonable achievements by the police.

Incitement to Violence

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will review the law relating to incitement to crimes of violence in the light of the publication of magazines and manuals giving explicit instructions on methods of attacking and killing human beings, copies of which have been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mellor: Extending the law on incitement would be difficult. I understand that one of the publications that my hon. Friend has in mind has been referred by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is considering it.

Mr. Fookes: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a real difficulty in an increasingly violent age if manuals and magazines such as those have a wide circulation and fall into the hands of irresponsible young people? His answer is not good enough.

Mr. Mellor: My answer simply tells my hon. Friend what the present state of the law is. It would be premature to judge that law as inadequate while the most offensive of those magazines are still being considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the Minister intend to take any steps against a book entitled "The Poor Man's James Bond" which is on widespread sale in London and which not only tells people how to commit acts of violence but encourages them to do so? As it is an imported book, could not the Customs Consolidation Act be used against it?

Mr. Mellor: I will look into what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are a number of these weapons of death, martial arts magazines and especially magazines promoting crossbows, which definitely encourage people to take the law into their own hands? Will he do everything possible to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. Drake (Miss Fookes) has said? We must outlaw such magazines and stop people being violent and being tempted to use glamorous weapons, which are really used by cowards.

Mr. Mellor: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes).

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister look again at the proposal that we put to Conservative Members on a number of occasions saying that there should be a standing committee in the Home Office to make recommendations on this type of thing? It is precisely because this matter is difficult to legislate on that the Government are in a mess. As long as they have policies which undermine the social fabric they will continue to have a high and rising rate of crime and threats of violent crime. If we are to get round that, we need some sort of licensing system. The Home Secretary could set up something today to look at that.

Mr. Mellor: The Government are not in a mess. We have applied the law and will consider, once the Director of Public Prosecutions has had the opportunity to consider those matters, whether anything further needs to be done.
Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the Dispatch Box and talks about law enforcement being in a mess, he should ensure that he can influence those Left-wing council leaders in London who are doing more damage to law and order in the capital than anyone else I can think of.

Oakham Police Station

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department for which financial year he proposes to authorise the construction of a new police station in Oakham, following the application in that regard by the Leicestershire police authority.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: All being well, we hope to be able to give the Police Authority approval next year to start this project in 1991–92.

Mr. Latham: I am grateful for the answer and I hope that all will be well. Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad state of that building in which policemen and civilians are working very hard? If there is the slightest doubt about all being well, will he come with me to have a look at the station so that we can get it right in the queue of priorities?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend's constituents would wish to pay credit to the way in which he has argued this cause. He will know that considerable works are going on in Leicestershire at the moment. Phase 1 of the force headquarters is under way and a sub-divisional headquarters is currently under construction. More generally, in 1986–87 the capital allocation on police buildings in England and Wales was up in real terms by 70 per cent. over the 1979–80 allocation.

Tamils

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Tamils have applied for and how many have been granted, political asylum or refugee status, since 1983; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: Statistics are kept by nationality, rather than by ethnic origin. In 1983, 380 Sri Lankans applied for asylum. None was granted refugee status under the terms of the 1951 United Nations convention or asylum, but 13 were allowed leave to remain on exceptional grounds. In 1984, 548 applied, two were granted refugee status, none asylum and 31 exceptional leave to remain. In 1985, 2,032 Sri Lankans applied, 33 were granted refugee status and 907 exceptional leave to remain. Final figures for 1986 are not yet available. Provisional estimates for 1986 show that in the course of that year about 1,300 Sri Lankans have applied for asylum, five have been granted refugee status and approximately 1,600 have been granted exceptional leave to remain. Since July 1984, there has been no distinction made between the grant of "political asylum" and "refugee status".

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the Minister reflect on his earlier answer about UKIAS and the British Refugee Council in relation to the Tamils and refugee status? Does he accept that the task of those bodies, as would be mine, whatever our individual views about the present law may be, is to determine which applications are acceptable under our present conditions? Therefore, will he accept the bona fides of UKIAS and the BRC to assist in determining that?

There is no case not to refer to those bodies in due course those who wish to come. There should be some form of appeal against the capricious action of his officials.

Mr. Waddington: I do not think that my officials are ever guilty of capricious action. Our refugee unit in the Home Office has always had the confidence of UNHCR and with good reason. I see the hon. Gentleman's point and I have already made it plain that I shall discuss all these matters with UKIAS. However, I must repeat that there are bound to be occasions when, in the interests of immigration control it will be necessary to take prompt action and it will not be possible to refer to UKIAS.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the public will fully understand the high numbers that he has just given to the House of those being allowed to stay in the country under the heading of "exceptional leave to remain"? Is he satisfied that there is a proper distinction between applications being granted for refugee status and the large numbers being granted under another heading? Will he do anything about that?

Mr. Waddington: We have done something about it. The explanation for the high figures is that prior to the introduction of the visa requirement in the summer of 1985 there was a big influx of people from Sri Lanka. That was a reason for the introduction of the visa requirement. During the past 12 months or so we have had to deal with all those people who came here, particularly in May 1985, and that is the explanation of the high figures.

Mr. Ashley: After his earlier statements in the House will the Minister retain his office if any of the famous 64 Tamils is eventually allowed to stay in Britain?

Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he will consider these cases afresh and that is precisely what he will do.

Police Building Programme (Lancashire)

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the police building programme in Lancashire.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have received letters from seven hon. Members including one from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in support of representations made by Lancashire county council about a start date for a new sub-divisional headquarters at Leyland and the number of minor police building projects approved for 1987–88.

Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the delay in the construction of the new Leyland police station to 1989–90 although it was originally planned in 1982? Is he further aware that Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary described the Leyland police station as the worst building in the county and urged something to be done about it at the earliest opportunity? Will he give me an assurance that something will be done to ensure that the police work in proper, modern conditions?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is a formidable advocate of his constituents' interests. We accept the need for a new police building at Leyland and we have given the county council approval to plan it. We hope that later this year, all being well, we shall be able to offer a start date for Leyland in 1990–91.

Drugs

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are now specifically allocated to drugs work; and how this compares with 1979, 1982 and 1985.

Mr. Mellor: By April of this year, a total of 1,157 police officers will he serving in force drugs squads, drugs wings of regional crime squads and the national drugs intelligence unit. On 31 December 1985, 833 officers were serving in force drugs squads and the national drugs intelligence unit. On 31 December 1983 the equivalent figure was 600. Force drugs squads were first established in every force in 1983 and information for earlier years is not availble.

Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the increase in police officers specifically dedicated to the fight against drugs has been very widely welcomed? Can he tell the House how the increase in police officers has affected the number of drug seizures? Can he confirm that the Government will continue to place emphasis on the fight against drug demand as well as drug suppliers?

Mr. Mellor: Yes, indeed we will. Last year, if police and the custom figures are taken together, there were record numbers of people arrested for trafficking in drugs. I know we would all like to congratulate the police on making, a few weeks ago, the largest single seizure of cocaine in this country—34 kilos in one seizure alone.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Hardy: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her offficial engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with a delegation from the National Pensioners' Convention.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that throughout the whole of our recorded history, Britain has never experienced such an increase in crime as has occurred since she was first elected to office on the platform of law and order? Is she further aware that the intensity of crime — which does seem to match the Conservative party's commitment to greed—is now at such a level that millions of our people, many of them elderly, have to live with gnawing anxiety as well as the financial hardship that they have experienced during the Prime Minister's tenure of office?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, crime has been steadily rising, not only in this country but throughout the western world. That makes it all the more important for Governments to do what this Government have done — provided more police, better equipment, and supported them and the courts in their difficult decisions.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy schedule today to consider the news that at least three Labour-controlled borough councils are planning to

increase their rates by 50 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that this will provide a substantial burden —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question must be related to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Mrs. Roe: I did preface my question by saying that it was connected with the schedule of the Prime Minister's diary today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this will prove to be a substantial burden, particularly for small businesses, which will definitely result in a loss of jobs?

The Prime Minister: Yes. That is one further piece of evidence that Labour is the high-tax party. I agree with my hon. Friend that high rates make it very difficult for small businesses to prosper in those areas and therefore affect the prospects for jobs.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister aware that because she broke the link between pension rises and average earnings, pensioner couples in Britain are now £11·40 a week worse off and single pensioners are now £7·20 a week worse off than they would have been if she had maintained the link? Will she restore that link since it is so obvious that some of the poorest people in Britain have been seriously deprived as a consequence of her policies? Or does she think that those people, desperately needing every penny that they can get, can afford to go on losing hundreds of pounds a year?

The Prime Minister: No, we will not restore the link to average earnings. We undertook that we would price-relate pensions and we have. Pensions have gone ahead faster than the increase in prices. If the right hon. Gentleman takes a true comparison he should compare the standard of living of pensioners today with the standard of living of pensioners as a whole during the lifetime of the Labour Government. The fact is that between 1979 and 1985 the average weekly net income of pensioners has risen by 18 per cent. in real terms, more than twice the increase for the population as a whole. When one compares that with the record of the Labour Government one finds that it is an average increase of 2·7 per cent. a year compared with 0.6 per cent. a year between 1974 and 1979.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister know very well that the first set of figures that she quoted is attributable almost entirely to the inclusion of the state earnings-related pension scheme. She has a real cheek, as an individual and as the Prime Minister, in seeking to destroy that scheme. Is it not the case that with the losses sustained by pensioners as a result of breaking the link, the record of the Labour Government of a real terms increase of 20 per cent. compares favourably with the increase under the right hon. Lady of 4·5 per cent.? Will she not do her duty to the pensioners of Britain instead of letting the Chancellor give away money in a fortnight's time to people who do not need it when there are people in real need in this country?

The Prime Minister: What the right hon. Gentleman wants is for pensioners to have no income other than that which they get from the state. That is what he wants, basic pension and SERPS. I have given him the true figure for the standard of living. He says that it is totally related to SERPS. It is not. About 4 million people now have occupational pensions which on average nearly double the basic state pension. Many of them own their own homes. Pensioners' incomes from savings have increased by 7·3


per cent. per year in real terms. This is the real standard of living of pensioners, and it is far better than it was in his time.

Mr. Kinnock: If the Prime Minister believes all that will she answer two points? First, if she thinks that people should be independent of the state, why is that under her Government 2 million more pensioners have to rely on supplementary benefit because they have been pushed farther down into poverty? Secondly, if she really believes that pensioners are better off, why does she not go to them and ask them if they can afford to lose £11 a week because she has broken the link with earnings?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not getting it right. There is a basic pension in this country and there must be a second pension. Part of it is either the supplementary earnings-related pension from the state, or an occupational pension. Some pensioners have savings, some have houses and some have other sources of income. Which of the figures that I have given him does the right hon. Gentleman challenge?

Sir Paul Bryan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit to Moscow will bring reassurance throughout the free world because of her standing as a leader, and a leader who can negotiate from strength?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall show in Moscow that this Government are prepared not only to stand up for freedom of speech, but, in action and words, for defence policy.

Mr. Steel: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Environment advised the young homeless in London to go somewhere else to find a home. Does that not contradict the advice given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that they should leave their homes to find a job? What advice does she give to the young jobless and homeless other than perpetual travel?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a considerable number of council houses are empty all over the country. Indeed, in England 112,000 houses and flats are empty, of which 27,000 have been empty for more than a year. The Government have taken many steps to tackle homelessness. We have allocated the Housing Corporation an additional £20 million next year for a scheme under which housing associations can combine 30 per cent. grant from private finance to provide more accommodation for rent. The Government will also give local authorities the power to provide financial assistance to the private sector—up to 30 per cent.—for the cost of a new scheme to encourage the provision of rented housing. We have offered £4 million to the Department of the Environment's estate action programme to bring empty and run-down council homes back into use. That is to try to tackle the problem of homelessness. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that there are over 1 million more homes in this country than there were in the lifetime of the Government that his party supported.

Mr. Mates: As to the criticism in The Times today about the state of the British Army, will my right hon. Friend agree that, while real problems remain in equipping all three of our services and the conventional threat to NATO continues to grow, it is the massive increase in resources that we have made available in the last seven years that has enabled the Army, through pay and equipment, to continue to meet that threat professionally?

Anybody who advocates, or even contemplates, putting the defence of this country in the hands of any or all of the Opposition parties needs their head examined.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Labour party does not have an effective defence policy for Britain. The Government have spent a total of £2,000 million more in real terms on the Army than if expenditure had been left at its 1978–79 level. We are carrying out a massive re-equipment programme for the Army, including main new battle tanks, new armoured personnel carriers, new artillery, defence missiles and new communications equipment. Furthermore, the Government have also implemented in full —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House not to shout in this manner.

The Prime Minister: The Government have also implemented, in full, eight successive reports on service pay from the armed forces pay review body, with phasing for only a matter of months in just two of those years. That is an excellent record.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts is investigating the implementation of the 1981 Education Act, which deals with children who have special needs? Is she aware that, despite the valiant and superb attempts of teachers and local authorities to implement the Act, the experts tell us that, because of the total lack of Government funding, the Act is failing? Will the Prime Minister, therefore, instead of paying lip service to the needs of those children, who are blind, deaf or mentally and physically handicapped, direct her Chancellor in his Budget speech to transfer the tax hand-outs from the rich to those children who are in need of the extra money?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse their moneys. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that spending per pupil is up by 19 per cent. in real terms in the lifetime of this Parliament, and that the pupil-teacher ratio is far better than ever it was. There are more teachers, they have fewer pupils and there is more money spent on each pupil. Beyond that, it is for local authorities to decide how they disburse the moneys available.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March 1987.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some 10 minutes ago.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend take time today in her busy schedule to consider the prospects of a large rate increase that are facing my constituency? Last year, we suffered a rate increase of 26 per cent., imposed by the Labour-controlled county council. The Liberals wanted a 24 per cent. increase. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a rise such as this will only damage householders, depress job prospects in Derbyshire and do


great harm to old-age pensioners, about whom the Opposition seem to care so much ? Will she reaffirm her Government's intention to abolish the present rating sys tern?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that the increase that has been made by Derbyshire county council is indefensible. Derbyshire county council's rate is already 25 per cent. above the average for shire counties, and a further 26 per cent. increase on top of that must mean that it is planning a further massive spending increase, which will damage small businesses, at the expense of ratepayers in that area. I assure my hon. Friend that during the first Parliament after the election we shall be introducing our rates reform Bill for England and Wales.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the Prime Minister take time in her busy day actually to read the letter on pay limitation in The Times today from Lord Morpeth, in which he announces that he is resigning his commission to protest against the Government's cuts in the Army, Navy and Air Force and says, inter alia, as they say in Grantham :
Vehicles breaking down—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote please.

Mr. Mitchell: —in which he says that vehicles breaking down cannot be replaced, that the efficiency of the finest volunteer fighting force in NATO is being impaired and that vehicles purchased in the 1960s will still be being used at the turn of the century? Instead of giving the Army nothing but her excuses to fight with, will the Prime Minister send a message to Lord Morpeth saying —
"Hang on. Labour's coming"—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We had better just hear the end of this.

Mr. Mitchell: Instead of cutting the conventional forces to buy Trident, Labour will build up our conventional strength so that a conflict does not escalate into a nuclear conflict straight away.

The Prime Minister: The Labour party-does not have a defence policy worthy of the name for this country. The conclusion to be drawn from the hon. Gentleman's question is how very much worse things would have been had the Labour party been in power. It would have spent £2 billion less in real terms on the Army than we have and it would never, never have honoured all the pay increases from the armed forces pay review body, which we have. It should be thanking its lucky stars and the voters that they voted this Government into power.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Islwyn): May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY 9 MARCH—Opposition Day (10th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on prospects for the removal of intermediate nuclear weapons from Europe in the light of Mr. Gorbachev's willingness to conclude a separate INF Agreement, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Disparity of Opportunities within the United Kingdom" which will arise on a motion in the names of the leaders of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.
Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order.
TUESDAY 10 MARCH — Until about seven o'clock, Second Reading of the Debtors (Scotland) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill.
Motion on the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY II MARCH—Until seven o'clock, Estimates Day (1st Allotted Day, 1st Part). There will be a debate on Estimates relating to assistance to the coal industry; details will be given in the Official Report.
Afterwards there will be a debate on a motion relating to the motor vehicle industry and on the Industry Act 1980 (Increase of Limit) Order.
Consideration of Lords amendments that may be received to the Local Government Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 12 MARCH—Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on the arts on a Government motion.
Motion on EC documents relating to the agreement between the Community and the United States on the trade consequences of Community enlargement. Details of the documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order.
FRIDAY 13 MARCH—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16 MARCH — Second Reading of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill.

[Wednesday 11 March

Supply Estimates 1986–87, Spring Supplementary Estimates, HC 160, Class 6, Vote 1.

Thursday 12 March

Relevant European Documents
(a) Unnumbered Settlement of Trade Dispute with USA
(b) Unnumbered Settlement of Trade Dispute with USA : Implementation

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee
(a) HC 22-ix (1986–87), para. 2
(b) HC 22-xi (1986–87), para. 2]

Mr. Kinnock: On the motion on the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order to be debated next Tuesday, is the Leader of the House satisfied that sufficient time has been allocated for the House fully to discuss this important item of business? Why will the Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill be debated so late on Wednesday night? Can the Leader of the House even now

provide time earlier in the day on Thursday, or even in the week after next, to increase the possibility that this important debate will be fully and publicly reported? Why the rush with this legislation?
Recalling the Secretary of State for the Environment's sneering advice yesterday that the young homeless should
go to somewhere where there is a home, rather than to sleep rough in London"—[Official Report, 4 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 866],
will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the subject of homelessness, so that the Secretary of State can give full vent to his views in this United Nations International Year of Shelter for the Homeless?
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have met workers from the Caterpillar plant in Uddingston who are lobbying hon. Members about the future of their tractor plant where the company proposes a closure and the loss of 1,200 jobs. The company has refused requests from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider the closure. Surely it would now be right for the Government to make a positive response to my previous request that Government time be given for a debate on this proposed closure which will clearly have devastating consequences for the work force and for thousands of other workers who are employed by component suppliers.
Last week I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on foreign affairs. May I once again press him on that, in the light of President Reagan's statement today about the provision of arms to Iran and to the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, as well as the other matters of great significance which remain on the international agenda?
Later today the House will continue its debate on the Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill, which introduces the community charge poll tax. I understand that the Tory Reform Group will issue a statement tomorrow which warns that the proposal is "misconceived" and that the
new tax will undermine local self-government whilst not achieving the financial and political accountability that is now seen to be necessary for local government".
In view of that frank advice from a Conservative group. will the Leader of the House, even at this late stage, prevail on his Government colleagues at least to extend the period of consideration of the Bill so that the Tory Reform Group Members of Parliament can put their compelling case to this House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall take the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman in the order presented. First, I believe that it will be possible so to arrange affairs on Tuesday as to enable consideration of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order to have an appropriate amount of time.
Secondly, on the question of the Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, those are precisely the sort of issues that lie at the heart of usual channel consultations. I shall make sure that his anxieties on that point are further known.
On the request for a debate on homelessness, to which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would add the consideration of the more effective use of the national housing stock, I am certain that that is a debate which could take place in this Chamber as a preliminary to the wider debate that we all anticipate with such good nature and zeal later this year or early next—[Interruption.] I


shall bear in mind the nervous laughter of Labour Members at that speculation, but of course we shall look at that through the usual channels.
I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious that the Caterpillar plant should be considered and in terms which put it aside from the debate upon the motor industry. That is something that we might possibly consider in the context of the Budget debate.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned his concern that there should be a reasonably early debate on foreign affairs. I accept his concern on that matter. Again, I am sure that be will realise that the timing must be related to the immediate demands upon parliamentary time that will be taken up by consideration of the Budget.
The right hon. Gentleman gave a charming indication of the anxiety that has entered his soul about his recent loss of numbers. His concern to recruit to his aid the Tory Reform Group must surely be the gesture of a fairly desperate Leader of the Opposition. Although I have never been a member of the Tory Reform Group, I have always kept a close association with it, and I shall try to do what I can by way of good endeavours to put him in touch with a future political home.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: My right hon. Friend will be aware that next Monday, 9 March, is Commonwealth day. May I draw his attention to early-day motion 670?
[That this House joins with all other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth in the observance of Commonwealth Day on Monday 9th March; and recognises the importance of the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which brings together parliamentarians throughout the Commonwealth who share a community of interest, respect for the rule of law and a commitment to promote the positive ideals of parliamentary democracy.]
The motion is supported by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and it draws attention to the importance of the Commonwealth and of the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. May I ask my right hon. Friend as Leader of the House, particularly at a time when we are entertaining many parliamentarians from other parts of the Commonwealth here in Westminster, to reiterate and confirm the Government's continuing support for the Commonwealth and the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?

Mr. Biffen: The whole House will have noted my right hon. and learned Friend's comments. With the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association taking place in this country, we recognise the important part that this institution has played in the association's evolution. I hope that in our discussions—private and public—we will establish for this country the right to have every bit as much of an independent policy as any other member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. David Alton: Further to his reply to the leader of the Labour party, does the Leader of the House realise the urgency of the problem of homelessness, with 100,000 people presenting themselves as homeless this year, and with Shelter estimating that by the summer no temporary hostel accommodation will be available for the homeless? Therefore, will the right hon.
Gentleman reconsider the urgency of' that matter and try within the next couple of weeks to arrange a debate in the House on homelessness?

Mr. Biffen: The matter has been debated recently, but I agree that that does not detract from the importance of the topic. However, I cannot go beyond the fairly generous reply that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition.

Sir Peter Mills: Has my right hon. Friend seen early day motion 703 about the conduct of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron)?
[That this House calls upon the honourable Member for Bother Valley to withdraw his allegations in the House on 26th February that there was any impropriety in the decision relating to public access over Maltby Commons and accept that his allegations were wholly unfounded.]
May we have a debate on that motion? Will my right hon. Friend start to talk through the usual channels until that unsatisfactory position has been cleared up properly?

Mr. Biffen: I have read the exchanges. I regret very much that they took place. I am sure that it will be possible for the matter to be resolved without all the ponderous consequences of debate. I shall bear in mind exactly what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order is a major piece of substantive primary legislation, and that to describe it as "appropriate" to attempt to deal with it in two or three hours by a procedure which gives no opportunity for proper consideration is a prime example of the cynical injustice with which the Government deal with the affairs of the Province?

Mr. Biffen: It was precisely because I hoped that affairs could be arranged that day so that more time would be allocated than stated by the right hon. Gentleman that I felt entitled to use the word "appropriate".

Sir Anthony Grant: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Tuesday the House gave leave for the introduction of a Bill, of which I am a sponsor, by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to amend the powers of the General Medical Council? I appreciate that the Government do not give special time for private Members' Bills, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet and anxiety about the number of tragic cases between patient and doctor, including cases in my constituency? Would it be possible to have a debate on that subject in the not too distant future?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. He is right to observe that no Government time would be made available for the passage of that private Member's Bill, but I suggest that, meanwhile, he takes advantage of the fact that the Department of Health and Social Security will be top of the list for Question Time next Tuesday.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that conditions in our prisons are becoming explosively bad, and that Her Majesty's inspector of prisons has expressed his concern? Is he further aware that the Prison Officers Association has said that there are rats as big as cats in our prisons, which are infected with vermin? The reason for that is Crown immunity. Therefore, may we have a debate next week on the abolition of Crown immunity in our prisons?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman is a persistent and effective campaigner on the issue of Crown immunity, but I am not entirely convinced that the circumstances of the prison that he has described can be related solely to that factor. However, I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the points that he has made.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: Following the welcome rejection by the Secretary of State for the Environment of the application to develop a new town within the metropolitan green belt and the subsequent indication by the housing spokesman for the Opposition that under a Labour Government some element of development within the green belt might be contemplated, does not the Leader of the House believe that the time has arrived for the whole subject of the future of the metropolitan green belt to be discussed in a full debate?

Mr. Biffen: Clearly, if such a debate could give full and appropriate ventilation and publicity to those remarks that have been uttered on behalf of the Labour party, I would agree with my hon. Friend. The only thing that I cannot do is hold out the prospect of an early allocation of Government time. But there are many other ways in which my hon. Friend can secure greater publicity for this matter, and I wish him well.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not totally inadmissible for blindness to be ridiculed in a publication for which a Minister in the Government has ultimate responsibility? Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in a statement next week, to dissociate himself from the insulting treatment of that severe handicap in the current issue of Conservative News Line?

Mr. Biffen: I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman may not already have contacted my right hon. Friend to secure his observations upon the matter, but he will, I am sure, be satisfied when he knows the official remarks that have been made.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As we are not overburdened with legislation, and as we are now in the season of Lent, does my right hon. Friend think that we could have a debate on the future of the Church of England so that that body can be made aware of the strong feelings on a number of matters held in the House before the Synod makes its final decision?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that I can agree, alas, with my hon. Friend that the parliamentary timetable is relatively free of pressure for the next few weeks, particularly when we come to the Budget. I am sure that on reflection he will realise that I am right to hold that view. I will of course bear in mind the point that he makes, which is one of great substance for many people.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Government allocate time pretty soon to discuss the Anglo-Irish agreement? In view of the fact that there is a new Prime Minister—Taoiseach—in Dublin, and as it is a London-Dublin agreement and he has strong views about it, surely we ought to discuss it here and make our views clear.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and I will see that it is conveyed to my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, the right hon. Gentleman might take advantage of the fact that Northern Ireland questions will be first on Thursday of next week.

Mr. Michael Latham: I think from several rather oblique hints that he has given that my right hon. Friend is favourably disposed towards a debate on agriculture and the environment. Is he getting any nearer to actually fixing one? If he is thinking of leaving it until after the White Paper appears later this month, will he please not leave it too long? We do not want a long period of consultation; we want a debate.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I assure him that the prospect of a debate is at least one week nearer than it was this time last week. It is not entirely over the brow of the future. There are real reasons why I believe that the Government would wish to present their policy to the House and the House to endorse it.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 675 on the important and serious matter of insider dealing?
[That this House, noting the movements in the share price of Marler Estates over the past seven months during the period in which Marler Estates was acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest first in Fulham Football Club and subsequently in Queen's Park Rangers Football Club, and noting the involvement of Mr. Terry Ramsden, Chairman of Glen International, Mr. Robert Noonan, Chief Executive of Marler Estates and Director of SB Property Company and Mr. David Bulstrode, Chairman of Marler Estates and Fulham Football Club, in the purchase and sale of Marler Estates shares during this period, calls on the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to appoint an Investigator under the powers contained in section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to establish whether a contravention of section 1 and/or 4 of the Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 may have taken place.]
In the light of the clear prima facie evidence, much of which has been reported in the press, that there may have been insider dealing in the shares of Marler Estates, a company which has been involved in a notorious asset-stripping attack on Fulham football club, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on this matter as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have noted the considerable popular interest that has attended the future of the football club. He might reflect upon the desirability of making available the information that he has to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Sir Ian Lloyd: It will not have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention that the report on civil research and development produced in another place has initiated a major and most significant debate throughout the press in this country. Is it not anomalous that this is the only place in which no debate on this subject has yet taken place? Should we not have an opportunity to express our views on this most important topic?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly bear in mind that request, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will bear in mind the difficulties under which I labour. I do not mean to be in


any sense dismissive when I say that the Budget debate will give opportunities for making many of the points that he would wish to make on this occasion.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the conclusion of discussions in Brussels in the early hours of yesterday morning on the future of the CAP, which is of critical importance to dairy and livestock farmers, and in view of the fact that no statement has been made in the House today on the discussions, will the Leader of the House assure hon. Members that there will be a statement next week and that some assurance will be given to dairy and livestock farmers in Wales who, because of recent developments, are fearful of the future?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food believes that a satisfactory deal has been made in the negotiations. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that there has been no statement to the House, but the truth is that one must have regard to the other pressures upon time. I shall certainly pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Nigel Forman: In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier statement—perhaps inadvertent—that the remaining length of the Parliament may not be indefinite, to put it gently, will he seriously consider the proposal already put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) about the need for a serious and lengthy debate in the House on the state of civil research and development, especially that which is conducted by the private sector, which is inadequate and needs to be increased?

Mr. Biffen: I am absolutely confident that any examination of Hansard tomorrow — I realise that Hansard will be thoroughly examined tomorrow—will demonstrate that I said that the election will come either later this year or some time next year. That covers all disagreeable possibilities. Of course, I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the desirability of having a debate on research and development in the public and private sectors. I cannot go beyond the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd), but that in no sense means that I am not fully conscious of the desire for a debate.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the continuing high level of unemployment in Liverpool and on Merseyside, despite the fact that Liverpool city council has built 4,300 houses in the past three years and has taken on 11,000 construction workers, will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to discuss at the earliest possible moment unemployment on Merseyside? Will he consider also the letter that I have sent him about the new proposals regarding taxis for hon. Members?

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's observations on the first point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Secondly, I have only just received the hon. Gentleman's letter, but I have a feeling that I could reasonably anticipate its contents. The decision taken by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee to examine the matter was not taken on its initiative. It was as a result of many representations to it about the unsatisfactory way in which the arrangements were working.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to provide time for a debate on British space policy? Will he take this opportunity of saying that such a debate might usefully be founded on decisions taken in the long overdue response by Her Majesty's Government to proposals from the British National Space Centre, which I trust he can confirm were made this morning?

Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer my hon. Friend's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall take into account my hon. Friend's anxiety that we should have a debate upon the topic. For the moment, there certainly is no prospect of a debate in Government time.

Mr. James Hamilton: I underline the request made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition for a debate on the drastic closure of the Caterpillar tractor factory in my constituency. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it has been widely reported that the Prime Minister sent two letters to the company in America. Can the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister divulge the company's reply so that hon. Members may know whether there is any hope of the company resuming full employment?

Mr. Biffen: I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the points that the hon. Gentleman has made that relate specifically to her. I quite understand why he makes known his concern about Caterpillar. I cannot say any more to him than I have already said to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Stokes: Now that the playing of games and sport in our state schools seems to be coming almost to an end, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on this important subject? Surely sport and games are most important for character building and for creating proper team spirit.

Mr. Biffen: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I see from the good-natured beneficent smile of the Leader of the Opposition, a great champion of schoolboy Rugby Union football in the valleys, that he is at one with me. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a useful topic to debate, but such a debate should be generated by a private Member using the advantages that are available to private Members. Currently, there is a shortage of Government time for such a debate.

Mr. Clement Freud: When the Broadcasting Bill [Lords] returns to this Chamber, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that his Government will not try to overturn the one amendment that was carried with support from the members of all three major parties?

Mr. Biffen: I have no wish to begrudge the hon. Member his legislative triumph. He knows that I am not in a position to make any such commitment. I shall ensure, however, that his anxiety is conveyed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Michael Brown: Did I hear my right hon. Friend aright when he said that the motion in the name of the alliance on defence and arms control will arise on the Adjournment? How shall I know which way to vote at the end of the debate? Am I to vote for or


against? Is it the position that the alliance does not know and that it cannot make up its mind on a Supply day what substantive motion to place on the Order Paper?

Mr. Biffen: If one has disagreeable problems, the classic formula is to try to opt for nice people. That is the touchstone of so many alliance Members. We shall be presented with a supreme example on Monday. We shall be confronted with some of the most disagreeable choices in defence policy, and the option is to adjourn. It hopes one day to be joined by a reformed Leader of the Opposition, but that is another story. As for how my hon. Friend should vote, keep close by me.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the appropriate Law Officer to make a statement next week on the number of times that cases have been dropped because of lack of money or inability to pursue the alleged culprits? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a startling example was provided by an announcement made by the Lord Chancellor in another place this week? It appears that the case involving Unimar and others connected with it — a gigantic fraud at Lloyd's — that led to more than 1,000 people being cheated out of money has been dropped deliberately by this Tory Government because they say that it is too expensive to pursue? Why was not that the position when they were pursuing the miners' money in five or six different countries? Was not that an expensive operation? Is not the truth of the matter that this Tory Government have one law for their friends in the City and another for those like miners and pensioners, who might be hauled before the courts for having a tin of salmon from Sainsbury?

Mr. Biffen: I do not think that is the motivation of the Treasury Bench. None the less, if this will help the hon. Gentleman, I shall refer his request to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General so that he may consider the issue that he has raised.

Mr. John Whitfield: Does my right hon. Friend share my increasing concern at the tendency of Left-wing local authorities to rename famous landmarks and streets in English towns and cities that are under their control after African terrorists? The latest example of this civic-sponsored graffiti is to be found at the town hall in Dewsbury, which the Kirklees metropolitan district council decided last week to surround with a road that is to be named Mandela way. I ask my right hon. Friend to make time available soon for a debate on a motion urging the Government to bring forward as fast as possible their reform of rates so that Left-wing authorities such as Kirklees council become more accountable to their ratepayers and less accountable to African terrorists.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises a narrow but none the less very powerful instance of action on the part of local authorities that reveals so much of their underlying commitment. Alas, I cannot offer him any Government time for the matter to be debated, but I hope that he will take advantage of all the other available opportunities in the House to ensure that it is given further consideration.

Mr. Robert Parry: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 654?
[That this House deplores the sacking of 270 bus drivers and other workers by the Crosville bus company in Liverpool; notes the sacking followed a strike by drivers of long experience for refusing to drive old second-hand non-power steering buses; also notes that more than 150 drivers had between 10 to 25 years service including one driver who had more than 30 years service and was only two years off retiring age; further notes that none of the sacked workers received any redundancy payments; supports the Transport and General Workers Union for its efforts to have the men re-instated; calls upon Her Majesty's Government for a full investigation into the dispute; and considers similar disputes could have serious consequences for bus drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users, justifying the Labour party's opposition to the de-regulation of buses.]

It relates to the sacking of 270 transport workers in Liverpool. Will the Leader of the House refer this matter either to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport — bus deregulation was the cause of the dispute — or to the Paymaster General, because the moves of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service were torpedoed by the intransigence of the Crosville bus company? The matter is urgent and is of paramount importance because it may affect bus drivers, bus companies and road safety throughout the country.

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me in the past. I shall reconsider the points that he has just made to see how my right hon. Friends might help.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: When may we have a debate on the use and abuse of diplomatic immunity? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the Jordanian Government have been most honourable in establishing the precedent of removing the diplomatic shield from someone, a chef, who should not have had diplomatic immunity in the first place, there is a growth industry in the number of people claiming diplomatic immunity and escaping justice and the rule of law? A debate on that matter is essential.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will respond in as quick a way as he did to my question last week concerning the Towers hospital in Leicester and its secure unit. I am grateful to him for bringing to the attention of the Minister for Health the four people who escaped from that unit.

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks relating to his second point. On his first point, I will certainly see that his observations are drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Leader of the House will be aware that, two days ago, there was a statement on prescription charges. However, he may not be aware that the Secretary of State did not inform the House that one in three prescriptions paid for cost less than the prescription charge of £2·40. Given that that is new information, will the Leader of the House pass it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and explain to him that with so much money to give away in the Budget it might be a good way of cutting taxes to cut this nasty tax on the sick?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers was widely known. Perhaps he would like to reflect upon the fact that prescription


charges are the subject of an instrument that may be prayed against and will almost certainly come before the House.

Mr. Derek Conway: The reason for the motion on defence policy tabled by the SDP for Monday to adjourn the House is that it cannot agree with its Liberal friends on that subject. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the excellent service of video recordings available to hon. Members is restored so that, before the debate, we may watch a video of the Liberal conference that went unilateral and a video of the interview with the leader of the SDP on "This Week Next Week" when he thought that perhaps three rather than four submarines for Trident may be an alternative policy? As the SDP and the Liberals are in total disarray about this matter, the House should see the recordings before Monday's debate.

Mr. Biffen: After my hon. Friend's powerful advocacy, I believe that no organisation on my part is needed.

Mr. Tani Dalyell: May I return to the answers given to the Leader of the Opposition and the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) regarding Caterpillar? What has been said? Will the Treasury make a statement?—That is the impression that the Leader of the House gave. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved, so much the better because, frankly, he is involved with Caterpillar and the issue of Golden Wonder in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and exactly how the City is operating regarding profitable firms in Scotland. Will the Treasury take charge of this policy, because that is what the Leader of the House suggested?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter as it will enable me to clear up an unintended misconception. It is my judgment that the topic can be debated, subject to the Chair, during the Budget debate. It was certainly not my intention to give the impression that a statement would be made by any Minister during such a debate. I was particularly anxious to point out the virtues of the Budget debate, rather than a debate on the motor industry, as being the debate during which to refer to the matter.

Mr. John Mark Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend explain why the SDP and the Liberals have chosen for next week's debate the title: "The disparity of opportunities within the United Kingdom"? Has that something to do with the fact that Bill Rodgers, Shirley Williams and Mike Thomas have deserted the northern seats for southern ones? Can it be that they do not fancy their chances in the north of England?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has pointed to yet another fascinating dimension to the north-south problem.
In truth, I cannot make any satisfactory comment upon why the topic chosen has been drafted in such terms. I am sure that we will have an enjoyable debate.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Leader of the House agree that as, yet again, the draftmanship of legislation has been called into question by the courts because its meaning is not clear and the Government keep losing court cases, now would be an opportunity to find time for a debate on the whole

question of parliamentary draftmanship. In that way, even if Ministers cannot understand legislation, we, the ordinary Members, may do so in due course.

Mr. Biffen: I shall say that the hon. Gentleman is optimistic rather than arrogant. It is a most extraordinary assumption that any of us, in any corner of the House, can understand so much of that which is now produced as legislation. I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will appreciate that there is little time available for general debate within the Government's keep.

Mr. David Crouch: In view of the difficulties that have recently arisen about showing video films in the precincts of the House, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I am proposing to show next week a revealing film produced by the Soviet authorities of the recent visit paid to the Soviet Union by the Inter-Parliamentary Union? That group was led by my noble Friend Lord Whitelaw and the deputy leader was the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I know that it will be revealing, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of the fact that it will also be interesting.

Mr. Biffen: And free. My hon. Friend is too modest to remind the House that he was also a member of that delegation. Doubtless the House will have noted what he has said.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the reason why the Government have refused to take legal action against Mr. Wallace and Captain Holyroyd that they are concerned that if the case were brought to court matters might be raised in the witness box which would be embarrassing to the Government in relation to the activities of the security services?
In the light of Captain Holyroyd's statement made at midday on Ulster radio and his further allegations, we do not know whether they are to be believed. However, in so far as they are embarrassing to the Government and talk of attempts to destabilise the Government of the Irish Republic during the 1970s, the parliamentary answer given the other day is insufficient. Surely we should have a full statement from the Dispatch Box so that every Member of the House can question Ministers. We need to know the truth. Are the allegations true or false?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that the written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was perfectly adequate to answer the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Reg Freeson: Taking another aspect of the north-south issue to which the Leader of the House referred a moment ago, despite the much vaunted prosperity of the south-east is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are nearly 400,000 people out of work in London? That is the second highest regional figure in the country. There are many other problems associated with that by way of social and economic decline. Will the Leader of the House arrange, exceptionally, for a debate on the situation in London, which would provide a rare opportunity for the House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request, but I cannot be optimistic in my response, because, although the capital and the south-east


are of great national significance, there is not the prospect of that amount of Government time to make such a debate an early prospect.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House consider his motion on short speeches and bring it to the notice of the House so that we can have a debate? My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) raised this matter some weeks ago. We have waited patiently for the motion, and the amendments on it, to be debated. Most hon. Members feel that when we put our names down to speak and we are not called it is because many Members take such a long time to speak. Is it not time that we had a debate on this issue? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should pay attention to the fact that, when the Prime Minister is answering supplementary questions at Prime Minister's Question Time, rules on short speeches should be applied to her as well.

Mr. Biffen: I hope that this topic can return to the Floor of the House soon. It has been no wish of mine that it should not be considered. There has been much discussion to see whether there could be a more broad and common front about its implementation. Nevertheless, it will come back to the House for consideration.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the Governor of the Bank of England is doing his best to bring interest rates down? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to follow that example and bring interest rates down now rather than waiting for the Budget, as that will please every person who pays a mortgage, industry and the farmers?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for what I am certain is well-intentioned advice, which I believe is also sound advice.

Rate Support Grant

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about rate support grant.
I have today appealed against the court judgment in a case brought by Greenwich borough council. That judgment would mean that I could not correct an acknowledged error in the 1986–87 settlement, which deprived some London authorities of their full grant entitlements. As a result of that judgment, it is necessary now to amend the rate support grant figures I announced in January for 1986–87 and 1987–88 so that grant can be paid from the beginning of April. I have sent the revised figures to local authorities today. They are available in the Vote Office and the Library.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is completely inadequate in that it seeks to disguise the serious nature of the situation resulting from the incompetence of this Government in their handling of local government finances? This is truly unprecedented. The Secretary of State has now announced to the House that all the figures for the current financial year and the coming financial year are again to be affected by changes as a result of Government and ministerial ineptitude. Is he not trying to disguise, by his lack of candour and of detail in the statement, the reality of the wide-ranging implications of what he has had to say?
When, if ever, will there be an end to the legal defeats for this Government in the courts, resulting from their continuing incompetence in this crucial sector of local government finance? If the Secretary of State intends to carry through his appeal against the Greenwich decision, why is he already announcing his decision to amend the rate support grant figures? How many changes result from his decision today? How many local authorities will be affected?
Do the Government intend to make more grant available in total, and how many authorities are likely to lose grant as a result of what he has announced today? Does he recall that in July last year the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Planning, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) said that the legislation introduced then was necessary to provide local authorities with certainty about present and past entitlements? Since then there have been three more local government finance Bills, and countless statements by the Secretary of State on the same subject.
Is it true that the Conservative borough of Bromley, having made its rate and announced its budget, will be in an unlawful position if the changes that the Secretary of State has announced today are carried through? Are not many other local authorities likely to be in the same difficulty, because of the necessity to fix precepts by 10 March, which is next week, and to fix their rates by 1 April?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the changes that were sneaked out in a letter last week resulted in major confusion? For example, the city of Newcastle upon Tyne had to make no fewer than 160 changes in its budget. The Tyne and Wear fire authority had to call an extraordinary meeting last week, costing hundreds of pounds, because of


this incompetence. The London borough of Hounslow incurred almost £1,000 in administrative costs because of those changes.
Today, further massive changes and their costs will fall on local authorities in England and Wales. Even as we speak, the Greater Manchester fire authority, having met today to fix its precept, cannot take any decisions because of the confusion caused.
Does the Secretary of State stand by today's announcement by the Tory Reform Group, in a press notice, which is endorsed by the right hon. Members for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Witney (Mr. Hurd), by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and by Viscount Whitelaw:
Government was acting in a haphazard way, making up these decisions as it went along. It had no clear idea as to why it had to intervene so constantly, what was so fundamentally wrong in local government and how to put it right.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he retains the confidence of his colleagues who put their names to that statement?
Is the Secretary of State aware that any other Minister with such an abysmal record of unlawful action, defeats in the courts, administrative incompetence and lack of frankness with the House would be considering his position?

Mr. Ridley: I thought you were tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Not only did he range over matters irrelevant to the statement, but he described it as a legal defeat. I made it clear that I have appealed—the appeal papers were lodged. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and he is prejudicing the appeal by saying such things. Until the appeal is determined, the law is as it is left by the High Court judgment. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that it is necessary to amend the rate support grant figures in accordance with the judgment. I have to tell him, because he got it wrong again—he gets so many things wrong that I do not know where to start—that this is the result not of what he called Government ineptitude, but of a court judgment. If he cannot make the distinction between those two things, I suggest that he has much to learn.
No more grant will be available as a result of this judgment. The hon. Gentleman knows that the system is close-ended. Certain boroughs will lose as a result of this judgment. Grants that will properly be paid to certain London boroughs for maintaining their roads will be switched to other boroughs which do not have responsibility for maintaining those roads. That is a quite inequitable situation, and I regret that the judgment means that I have to enshrine it in the new rate support grant figures. I am not clear how many of the authorities have actually made their rates, although I do not think that many have done so yet. If any have made their rates, they can apply to the court to quash a rate if they find that it is insufficient, in the light of the revised information deriving from this judgment.

Mr. Colin Moynihan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disgraceful that Greenwich has sought to find a loophole in the law to hold on to money which does not belong to it, to the detriment of other authorities?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is inequitable that grants which this House has determined

should go to authorities for specific purposes should have been changed to go to authorities which do not have to discharge those responsibilities.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does this Greenwich victory mean that the hard-pressed Labour-controlled borough of Ealing, where people are facing a steep rates rise as a consequence of the local authority's battle to meet the needs of the hard-pressed people of the borough, especially in Southall, can expect better behaviour by the Government and a higher rate support grant?

Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that the borough of Ealing is affected by what I have just announced. However, I believe that it has set an enormously high rate increase, which has nothing to do with my announcement.

Mr. John Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Bromley's rate calculations for last year and this year have been made on the basis of the clearest commitments given to me and to the council by Ministers and the Secretary of State's officials? Will he confirm that if the amendment to the rate support grant to which he has referred this afternoon means that Bromley is now to be deprived of the money that it expected—which would have a catastrophic effect on the ratepayers — he will endeavour to compensate ratepayers in some other way for the loss that will be incurred?

Mr. Ridley: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Bromley has lost about £3 million as a result of the interpretation of the law in the judgment. I have appealed against that judgment. We must wait and see the result of the appeal. However, I share his view that it is completely inequitable for grants determined for one purpose for one authority to be switched to another authority that does not have the same responsibility. I have always said that that is wrong with regard to Bromley. We will have to wait for the result of the appeal.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Is not the Secretary of State showing a rather desperate disingenuousness in trying to hang an appeal on a reported need to clarify the whole process of reallocating grants? Would it not be better for him to accept the court's judgment and receive the support of hon. Members on this side of the House to enable the matter to be clarified rather than go through the extended process? Is it not bizarre that he should accuse local authorities of inefficiency, yet write to them on 3 March presenting the relevant expenditure limits and telling them that he may be writing to them again in the near future with different relevant expenditure limits? Now apparently he will have to go through the whole process of appeal and the delay that that involves, and presumably there will be a third change of relevant expenditure. Surely local government is showing more efficiency than central Government.

Mr. Ridley: The Greenwich case was not about the specific allocation of grants; it was about a narrow interpretation of a point of law in the Rate Support Grants Act 1986. It is against that interpretation that I have appealed, and I suggest that we should not discuss the merits of that appeal until it has been heard. The inter-reaction of this constant litigation about points of law with the delicate timetable of the rate support grant mechanism causes a great deal of trouble. That is one of the reasons why we intend to abolish the rate support grant


mechanism and the rates, and we hope that we have the hon. Gentleman's support in that. Depending on the result of the appeal, it may be necessary to go back on the rate support grant, but that is an inevitable consequence of litigation that takes place that can have such an effect, affecting the whole totals.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem arises from inaccurate legal advice, creative interpretation of the law by the courts, and excessively complex legislation? Would he consider following the advice of Shakespeare:
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"—
exempting, of course, my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends? If he is not prepared to be Shakespearean about this matter, will he at least privatise the provision of legislative advice? Secondly, would he submit draft legislation to the Simple English Campaign'? Finally, will he rapidly introduce a measure to restore the situation to the status quo ante?

Mr. Ridley: We have to go through the legal processes to determine the precise meaning of the Rate Support Grants Act 1986, which was checked by outside counsel and was the result of a privatised lawyers' agreement. I do not think that that point would hold up. It is right to proceed to the appeal and learn the detailed result before making any comment on further action.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the real reason for the Government's continuous embarrassment by litigation their basic policy? Is it not clear that mechanisms such as clawback, which replaced the historic system of local government support grant, show that the Government, instead of meeting the real needs of communities—especially those that are hard-pressed — are in principle against any local government expenditure? Will the Minister admit that that is the real reason behind his continuous series of inefficient legislation?

Mr. Ridley: No, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. This matter is about the allocation of the total of rate support grant through the GREA system; it is not about clawback. An error was made two years ago in the allocation of the grants for road maintenance between certain London boroughs and others. The attempt to correct that error has been upset by the judgment. It will not rest there. We have appealed, and it is highly questionable whether we might not prove to be right in our interpretation.

Mr. Roger Sims: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), does he accept that he gave a firm unequivocal undertaking to the London borough of Bromley that it would receive grant to offset the costs of looking after GLC roads? From what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon, he has reneged on that undertaking. He has left Bromley in the position where, after making a rate, it is now likely that it will have to find a further £3 million, and the whole issue will turn on the whim of the appeal court. Surely my right hon. Friend can take steps to ensure that his undertaking that Bromley will receive the money will be kept.

Mr. Ridley: No. Whatever undertaking my predecessor gave, I must say that I have not gone back on that. The judgment of the court has meant that I am unable to do

that. I have gone to the length of appealing against the judgment in an endeavour to fulfil the undertaking given by my predecessor. It was never an undertaking that extra Government cash would be provided for Bromley. That would be quite wrong, because the rate support grant is close-ended. The activities of one borough have resulted in it and others receiving a share of the grant which was destined to go to Bromley and other boroughs. We are not talking about new cash; this is a redistribution of existing cash. I repeat that I remain concerned that the result of the judgment provides an inequitable situation for Bromley and other boroughs. I am seeking to put that right, but first I must have the Court of Appeal decide; otherwise the position will not be clear.

Mr. Peter Pike: Does the Secretary of State agree that, apart from the political implications of what the Government have done about rates recently, they have caused utter chaos to officers and treasurers of local authorities who are trying to fix a rate? Does he believe that, in a democracy, locally elected representatives and local government officers have a duty, if they think that there is something in the law which enables them to provide a better service for their community, to challenge the Government's interpretation through the legal system?

Mr. Ridley: Yes. Large numbers of authorities are taking cases to the courts for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given. They are perfectly free to do that, and I do not complain about it. It is odd how the Opposition are gleeful every time authorities succeed. The result of that process, however, is delay, uncertainty and confusion. That is not the Government's fault. It is the fault of those who insist on litigation on every possible occasion.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one month's time the new financial year will begin and rate demands will be sent out? When will local authorities know their entitlement to grant? Is this not a Kafkaesque situation? For how much longer will litigation go fiddling on?

Mr. Ridley: Because, as my hon. Friend rightly says, rates and precepts have to be set, I have today published a new settlement and sent it to local authorities. Because of the court judgment — it is not my choice, but I naturally comply with court judgments—I have to allow a short period for local authorities to comment on the changes. We are still in time to make the settlement by the end of the financial year and for precepting authorities to set their precepts. I must draw attention to the difficulty of sticking to the timetable and giving local authorities the time that they need to take their decisions against a background of constant litigation, some of which successfully upsets the orderly organisation of the rate support grant.

Mr. John Cartwright: What impact will the Secretary of State's statement have on the hard-pressed ratepayers of Greenwich, which is planning to jack up its spending by about 25 per cent. this year? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the borrowing, the creative accounting and the financial juggling that is going on in Woolwich town hall, will eventually have to be paid for by my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes)?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that the ratepayers of Greenwich are extremely hard pressed. The new rate support grant that I have announced today will give them increased grant as a main settlement and in the first supplementary report for 1986–87. If the appeal goes another way, it will be necessary to revise the figures once again. That is what is unsatisfactory about litigation which affects rate support grant figures for several years and means changing them during the rate support grant cycle.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is it not clear that the fault lies not with my right hon. Friend but with the ridiculous rating system with which we have been burdened for far too long, which nobody understands—least of all the Opposition—and which is grossly unfair to ratepayers? When the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill is passed, everybody will be eternally grateful for the early introduction of a similar Bill for England and Wales.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) must not draw attention to people who are not in the Chamber.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) understands very little indeed. He even gave a press conference yesterday announcing his decision that the Government would not appeal against the Greenwich judgment. I have not heard one word of abject apology, which is what is needed, from the hon. Gentleman. I should be grateful if in future he would leave statements on behalf of my Department to me. It will be many years before he has an opportunity to have anything to say on behalf of any Government Department.

Mr. David Winnick: How many court cases has the Secretary of State now lost while he has held various ministerial positions? Was it because of his incompetence that he was sacked by the previous Conservative party leader in the early 1970s, or were there other reasons of which we are not aware?

Mr. Ridley: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I resigned. On his first point, I do not keep the statistics for which he asks, but I believe that a question about that subject was answered quite recently.

Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): I accept that my right hon. Friend's statement relates to London, but does he agree that there is something rotten in the state of local government when the Leader of the Opposition's local authority—Ealing—meets tonight to set a rate which is about 80 per cent. higher than last year's and when the chairman of the independent Audit Commission identifies eight Labour-controlled inner-London boroughs which are inefficient and profligate? Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time for a root and branch reform of the local government finance system?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. This rate support grant system has got to he replaced. The Leader of the Opposition will be one of our most enthusiastic supporters when we introduce a new system, because it will save him an absolute packet of his good money which the borough in which he lives wastes in the profligate manner that my hon. Friend described. I understand that Ealing is to increase its rates by about 80 per cent. That, not the system, is the real disgrace.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are operating under a timetable today. I shall allow questions to run for a further four minutes and then I will call the Front Benches.

Mr. Eric Deakins: What will be the impact on the rate-making process in London boroughs which are affected adversely or advantageously by the court judgment if the Secretary of State wins his appeal after rate notices have gone out to ratepayers?

Mr. Ridley: The rates will have to be set long before it is likely that any judgment will come from the Court of Appeal. The rates will therefore have to be set on the basis of the new figures that I am publishing and sending to local authorities today. If there is a change in those figures, due to the result of the appeal court's judgment, adjustments will have to be made in the first supplementary report, or, possibly, the second supplementary report. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that grant figures are adjusted in supplementary reports year after year. We are still dealing with supplementary reports for several years ago.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does the Secretary of Slate agree that the Government have denied millions of pounds to ratepayers in Waltham Forest and elsewhere? Does he further agree that the Government have penalised especially heavily Labour-controlled councils which are trying to make good the problems that they inherited from their Tory predecessors who left the financial cupboard bare? How much will Waltham Forest get back because of the court action taken by a Labour-controlled council?

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that has anything to do with the statement. The borough of Waltham Forest is barely affected and the hon. Gentleman's question was not about that. I can confirm, however, that he is living in an extremely inefficient and extravagant borough which is increasing its rates by, I think, 68 per cent. for no good reason whatever.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that, following this week's statement on local government and local government finance, he should take this opportunity to consider resigning? Should the Secretary of State not step back, without falling over, and seriously consider stopping this vendetta against local government? The only thing wrong with local government is central Government, We should return to the sensible financial arrangements that we had prior to 1979.

Mr. Ridley: On this occasion the London borough of Greenwich is conducting a vendetta against other boroughs. It is trying to extract money for grant to boroughs that do not need to spend it. That has nothing to do with me and I am not responsible for the actions that have been taken. The result of the judgment leaves an inequitable situation.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Instead of giving waffling and evasive answers, interspersed with political propaganda, will the Secretary of State tell the House precisely what the financial impact of the statement that he has made today will be on the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham? If he is not in a position to give that statement clearly and unequivocally, will he admit that that is the product of his own and his


predecessor's absurdly complex system of local government finance which would make Byzantium look simplicity itself by comparison?

Mr. Ridley: The London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is not affected in any way by the statement that I have made. The hon. Gentleman can quickly check that when he considers the papers that are in the Vote Office. There may be a small effect on the borough, but it will certainly not be a major one.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Secretary of State serious in describing proceedings before courts of law in this country as vendettas? Does he not understand that vendettas are carried out by the Mafia in Italy as an alternative to court proceedings? Is he trying to suggest that the learned judge in the court, Mr. Justice Taylor, is to be likened to a Mafia boss? Is that his view and his contempt for the judicial processes of this land? Will he confirm that Greenwich and every other borough has a right to take the Secretary of State to court for his failure to observe the law? Does he agree that another reason why he has been so rattled today is that he had to explain to the Prime Minister this morning that Barnet was to lose more than £1 million as a result of his failure, Bexley £500,000, Bromley more than £3 million, Kingston £1·5 million, Merton £600,000, Harrow £1 million and Redbridge £1 million? Finally, will the Secretary of State stop squealing, because once again he has been found out by the court, and accept the word of the judge in that court that he had been
hoist with his own petard"?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman's comments go very close to prejudicing the appeal. He is quite wrong to come to conclusions about the eventual decision in this matter, which is now before the Appeal Court. I was accused of pursuing a vendetta against local government. If that colourful language is not thought to be offensive when it is used against me, I can hardly believe that the London borough of Greenwich would feel it offensive if I described it in that way. The borough has every right to go to court, as I said earlier, but it is going to court not to my disadvantage or loss, but to the disadvantage and loss of other boroughs in London. As I have said, it has created an inequitable situation in those boroughs.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As we share the same legislative root, may I ask what doubts this raises about the legal basis of the Welsh rate support grant? Have not the Welsh local authorities reached the most sensitive time for their rate-setting duties?

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman has a long list of questions, he must take them up with the Department concerned. It really is not a matter for me. On a point of order, he should ask me whether there will be a statement, or something like that.

Mr. Jones: I was about to make my point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Secretary of State for Wales, who should have been here showing courtesy to the House and who should have made a statement about the consequences of this serious statement, is it possible for the Secretary of State to come to the House and make a statement, tell us where we stand in respect of the rate support grant in Wales and say whether any changes are

to be made? The Secretary of State for Wales is a Cabinet sidekick of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we have lost confidence in him.

Mr. Speaker: That comment will have been heard by the Front Bench. Patently, these are not matters for me. I cannot answer whether Wales will be affected. That is not a matter of order.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for being late for the statement that was important for my constituents. I should like to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not do that. I should have called him if he had been here.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Wales left the Chamber without staying to hear what the implications would be for Wales, and that is a discourtesy to the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter of order, and it is not a matter for me.

BILLS PRESENTED

LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2)

Mr. Secretary Ridley, supported by Mr. Secretary Hurd, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John MacGregor, Mr. John Patten and Mr. Richard Tracey, presented a Bill to confer on tenants of flats rights with respect to the acquisition by them of their landlord's reversion; to make provision for the appointment of a manager at the instance of such tenants and for the variation of long leases held by such tenants; to make further provision with respect to service charges payable by tenants of flats and other dwellings; to make other provisions with respect to such tenants; to make further provision with respect to the permissible purposes and objects of registered housing associations as regards the management of leasehold property; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

CONTROL OF MERGERS (WALES)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley, supported by Mr. D. E. Thomas, presented a Bill to rename the Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board; and to make provision as to its functions in relation to the monitoring of mergers in Wales, industrial policy, and other matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 101.]

CONTROL OF MERGERS (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Gordon Wilson, supported by Mr. Donald Stewart, presented a Bill to provide control of merger situations affecting Scotland; to rename the Scottish Industrial Development Advisory Board; to make provision as to the functions of a Scottish Mergers Board and the monitoring of industrial policy and other matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

Orders of the Day — Abolition of Domestic Rates etc. (Scotland) Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2

LEVY, COLLECTION, PAYMENT AND RECOVERY OF COMMUNITY CHARGES

Amendment made: No. 130, in page 31, line 41 after 'standard', insert 'community'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move amendment No. 131, in page 32, line 14, at end insert—
'(1A) Where a levying authority are satisfied that a person liable to pay a community charge in respect of a financial year has (for whatever reason) not been issued with a demand notice in respect of that liability they shall, notwithstanding that the date prescribed under sub-paragraph (1) above in relation to that year has passed, cause a demand notice to be issued to him.'.
This amendment corrects an omission from the Bill. Subparagraph (1) of paragraph 2 of schedule 2 to the Bill provides for the issue of demand notices in respect of community charge liabilities before such date in relation to each financial year as may be prescribed. This provision is adequate for the ordinary case of demand notices issued in relation to a liability starting on 1 April for payment for one of the community charges by a person who is already registered as liable at the prescribed date. However, there will be circumstances in which it will not be possible for an authority to issue demand notices at the prescribed date — most obviously, in relation to liability for the personal community charge which only arises later in the financial year as someone moves into the area from elsewhere. The amendment therefore provides that where a person liable to pay community charge has not been issued with a demand notice after the prescribed date a demand notice should nevertheless be issued to him.
This is a reasonable amendment and I hope that the House will support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 33, line 13, leave out 'any instalment' and insert 'the instalments'

No. 133, in page 33, line 14, leave out 'this paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (1) above'. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 33, line 36 leave out sub-paragraph (9) and insert—

'(9) Where—
(a) a community charge is payable by a person in accordance with sub-paragraphs (1) to (8) above;
(b) any three instalments thereof are due but unpaid; and
(c) the levying authority give the person notice in writing of the effect of this sub-paragraph.

then, if these instalments have not been paid within seven days of the sending of that notice, the whole amount of that charge for the financial year in respect of which it was imposed shall, so far as not paid, thereupon become payable by him.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: Government amendment No. 135,
Amendment No. 168, in page 33, line 47 leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
'(5) The levying authority may make arrangements with any housing body for the community charge of a tenant and spouse to be collected by that housing body.'.
Government amendments Nos. 136 and No. 137.

Mr. Lang: The first and fourth of these amendments, Nos. 134 and 137, relate to sub-paragraph (9) of paragraph 4 of the schedule. The paragraph gives those liable to pay the community charge a right to pay by 12 monthly instalments. The effect of sub-paragraph (9) is that where an individual is three months in arrears he loses the right to pay by instalments and becomes liable to pay the whole of the amount outstanding both for the period of arrears and for the remainder of the financial year. This provision parallels the present situation in regard to rates, where individuals have the right to pay by 10 monthly instalments, five in the first half of the year and five in the second. If an individual is four months in arrears at the mid-point of the financial year—that is, at the end of September—he loses the right to pay by instalments and becomes liable to pay the whole amount.
In consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities officials last summer, the need to maintain this provision and adapt it to the circumstances of the community charge was clearly identified. It was argued that it would be unrealistic to provide that, where substantial arrears arose and the local authority had to go to the trouble and expense of taking legal action to recover the debt, it could proceed only for the precise sum outstanding. It would often be fairly clear that recovery of that amount, while at the same time securing normal payment of the remaining instalments, was simply not a practical proposition. In such circumstances, as happens with rates at present, the first step would be for the local authority to offer rescheduled payment arrangements aimed at recovering the sum outstanding and the amount of community charge due for the remainder of the year by somewhat higher instalments.
Only if that approach failed would the authority normally take legal action and once again it makes sound common sense for the relevant warrant to refer not just to the arrears but to the sum due for the remainder of the year so that a sensible schedule of payments can be worked out. The advice of COSLA officials was that in the circumstances of the community charge it would be more appropriate to have a shorter period of delay than under the rating system where, effectively, nothing can be done until the half-year stage.
So much for the background to the provisions of paragraph 4(9). When this was considered in Committee the point was made that it was unreasonable to take action on the lines implied in the sub-paragraph without giving people due warning. On consideration, the Government accept that there is a valid point here, and the amendments seek to meet it. Thus, amendment No. 134 provides that the local authority must give notice in writing and that the provisions of the sub-paragraph shall not become operative until one week after that notice has been given. It is a matter of judgment how long the period of notice


should be, and in considering the adequacy of the proposed period of one week account must be taken of the fact that the existence of arrears will, in most normal cases, not be news to the individual involved—nor, indeed, in most cases will the consequences of not paying up be news to him or her. On the other hand, it is important that local authorities should not be unduly handicapped in their attempts to get the money in. We consider that one week strikes a reasonable balance.
Amendment No. 137 sets out to achieve the same result in relation to housing bodies collecting the community charge from those resident in houses which they own. In such cases, the responsibility for taking legal action for debt recovery will rest not with the housing body but with the levying authority — that is to say, the regional council. But since day-to-day contact with the community charge payer, — or, in this case, non-payer — will be a matter for the housing body, it seems sensible to provide that it is the latter who should give notice. The technical difference between amendment No. 137 and amendment No. 134 is that, because the collection arrangements by housing bodies are not tied to 12 monthly instalments but are designed to provide greater flexibility, the amendment cannot simply refer to three monthly instalments, but refers instead to one quarter of a year's liability for the community charge. I consider that these amendments represent a sensible response to a reasonable point raised in Committee which I recall undertaking to reflect on, and I commend them to the House.
Amendment No. 135 addresses a problem which was identified in Committee. It has always been envisaged that where some difficulty was encountered with the normal instalment arrangements for payment of a community charge the remainder of the charge could be rescheduled by agreement between the person liable and the levying authority. Thus, if someone started to pay a personal community charge by 12 monthly instalments, but got into arrears, it should be possible for the authority to reach agreement with him to reschedule the outstanding debt before any question of formal recovery procedures arose.
Concern was expressed in Committee that the Bill as drafted would not allow for this. The amendment meets the point by providing that sub-paragraph (10) of paragraph 4 of schedule 2, which suspends the ordinary instalment arrangements in cases where agreement to that effect has been reached between the person liable and the levying authority, applies to cases not only of a community charge for the whole year but to any outstanding balance of it. It thus puts beyond doubt the fact that levying authorities will be able to enter into informal arrangements for debt rescheduling with persons liable for community charge payments.
Amendment No. 136 remedies an omission in the Bill. It has always been intended that housing bodies, when they collect personal community charge payments from people resident in the houses they let, should determine the instalment arrangements which will apply. The ordinary instalment arrangements for community charge payment are disapplied in these cases by sub-paragraph (10)(b) of paragraph 4 of the schedule. In the Bill as drafted, however, there is no explicit provision for instalment arrangements when a personal community charge is payable to a housing body. The amendment remedies this omission. It will be for housing bodies to determine what

instalment arrangements are most appropriate. In the case of tenants, it may well be that they will wish to collect personal community charges at the same time as rent, and institute parallel arrangements for the collection of personal community charges from non-tenants who are resident in the houses they let. But that will be a matter for them to decide in the light of operational considerations.

Mr. John Maxton: First, I welcome amendment No. 134, as it is in line with what we said in Committee. Normally, if a Minister has anxieties he expresses them in Committee and does something about them on Report. My memory may be shorter than the Minister's, but I do not recall him saying anything at that time.
Amendment No. 168 deals with paragraph 5 of schedule 2 which lays on the district authority and other housing bodies — the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new town development corporations — the responsibility for collecting the personal community charge from all who are resident in houses that they own. It is worth spelling out what that means.
At present housing bodies collect rent and rates from their tenants or joint tenants. In other words, someone who rents a house from a local authority pays rent and rates at the same time. That is provided for under the Housing (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1976 and it is a duty laid on housing bodies. However, there is a clear difference between a personal community charge and rates.
The Bill seeks to set up a different tax system from the present one. The whole idea is to break the link between tax and property. It is justifiable to say that rent, which is a charge on a property — one pays rent for the use of the property—and rates, which are a charge on the property for the services provided to that property, may be collected together, and it is perhaps right that they should be paid by the tenant in one bill. Indeed, if there are rent and rate arrears, a local authority may take the tenant to court on both sets of arrears jointly. However, what the Government are doing is completely different. They are saying that a personal community charge is the responsibility of each individual and has nothing to do with the house in which he lives. Individuals will pay it wherever they live. Therefore, in principle it seems wrong, especially if the Government are to be consistent, to keep this link between tax and property.
This measure will create enormous administrative problems for the district authority and other housing bodies. In Committee the Minister made it absolutely clear that the housing authority could not collect this sum with the same bill, even from its tenants and those paying rent, but had to send two separate bills. The Minister is nodding. Therefore, the housing authority must set up a collection service for this particular community charge.

5 pm

Mr. Jim Craigen: My hon. Friend must not look for consistency in the Government's position. Has he managed to elicit from the Minister any indication of the extra cost that will fall on local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and other housing bodies because of administration?

Mr. Maxton: No. Throughout the whole Committee stage we kept pressing for the costs of collection. We found it impossible to get an answer. The Ministers said they had


to consult the local authorities and other bodies before they would know exactly the final cost. My hon. Friend is right. There will be great expense.
First, the housing authority will have to establish a collection service for the personal community charge separate from collection of rents. We are talking about not just tenants or joint tenants and their spouses but about every person who lives in a local authority house—the children, grandparents, grandchildren of tenants, lodgers, and other people as well. The Government estimate that 350,000 or 400,000 people live in local authority housing who are not responsible for paying rent or rates but from whom the local authority will have to collect. Over half the people who live in council houses at present are non-ratepayers, and the Government will have to collect from them by a totally separate system.
That will be very expensive. The housing authority is being given no powers to take action against anyone who falls into arrears. Collection of arrears goes immediately to the levying authority, which is the regional authority. There is a clear differentiation between people who live in council houses and those who live in other types of housing. The Minister, explaining this in Committee, said that part of the community charge goes to the district anyway, so it is right that the tenants and those who live there should be responsible for payment.
I pointed out that everyone, whether living in a council house or not, pays a portion of the community charge to the district. No one except council house occupiers will pay anything else directly to the district. They pay to the regional levying authority. The Government admit that for the regions to establish machinery to collect the personal community charge will be much more expensive than the collection of rates.
The Minister is shaking his head. I have never heard any denial that this process will be a much more expensive procedure to establish than the collection of rates—[Interruption.] I thought that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) wanted local government costs to be kept down. It would be cheaper to make the region responsible for the collection of all community charges and not create a second tier of bureaucracy for the collection of the community charge from people in district authority housing.
Two separate authorities will have to be established with their own systems of bureaucracy to collect this tax. That is part of the administrative nightmare that has emerged in debate on the Bill, which I am delighted to see reinforced by a document published by the Tory Reform Group, which has used that same expression. Part of the administrative nightmare is the peculiarity of having the district collecting the tax. The district authority does not have responsibility for anybody but its own tenants; therefore, it should not be asked to take on the job of collecting the tax.
Following the Government's logic behind the Bill, why not introduce legislation to enable the local authority to collect electricity bills for the electricity board, gas bills for the gas board, telephone bills for the telephone companies, or TV licences? I could go through a whole list of housing-related services, the bills for which, on the logic of this measure, could very well be collected by the local authority.
The amendment at least allows local authorities to take that decision whether or not tenants and their spouses might pay the community charge jointly with their rent.

That is something for local authorities only to decide. The Government make great play of wanting to see bureaucracy reduced in local government. They ought to look again at this part of the Bill and consider my amendment seriously.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I was delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman seemed to be advocating the whole concept of contracting out of services where that would be most effective.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I draw attention to the fact that since the Committee stage we have had what I regard as one of the best submissions on the Bill from the Rating and Valuation Association, representing the views of the Scottish branch, which includes housing authorities, local government and people in the business of valuation. I do not suppose the Minister will accept the amendment, even at this late stage of the proceedings. Whether the amendment is defective or not I do not know, but I cannot understand why the Government do not take on board the philosophy of trying, wherever possible, to make a clean break from the established practice of collection of rates. This is a whole new tax.
This is not a region versus district argument, but why not use a wee bit of imagination and leave to it to the regional authorities, which are the levying authorities? They would obviously consult district authorities if that was thought to be desirable. Why not leave to those bodies the decision on the best way of levying and collecting this tax. I hope the Minister has read the submission. The worst aspect of dealing with two Ministers is that we are never sure who is dealing with it or who has done all the homework. — [AN HON. MEMBER: "Do not be patronising."] I am not being patronising. I know the difficulty only too well when one is not entirely in charge of a Bill.
Paragraph 15.3 of the document, which I assume has been read by the Minister, states:
The collection of community charges from residents in Housing Body houses generated considerable debate among Forum members. Presumably, the Government's intention in placing a duty on housing bodies to collect rates from residents in their houses is that the tenant's charge would be collected with rent and a separate bill (the demand notice) would be issued to non-tenants. This intent is surprising in the light of the Government's philosophy that Community Charges are personal taxes as opposed to property taxes.
That seems to fit in with my idea. Whether the Government will have the power over the next two or three years to change this is a matter for debate; but if they do have that power, why not use it and take the opportunity to make a clean break from the existing practice of the collection of rent and rates by housing bodies? This is a new tax with a different purpose. It will be levied on more people directly and individually. Therefore, this seems a good opportunity to make a clean break.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has referred to the electricity boards. I am just guessing, but I do not suppose that there is a single house in Scotland that does not have electricity and an electricity bill to pay. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is muttering something. Have I said something wrong?

Sir Hector Monro: Not all houses have electricity.

Mr. Brown: Some of the hon. Gentleman's farm cottages still have oil lamps, and I suppose that is a


reflection on rural landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) had better not say anything, although I suppose all his tenants have an electricity supply. Why not use the electricity boards to collect this money? The boards cover all houses. That would be an easier way of doing it than having more than 40 housing bodies in Scotland involved in collecting the money.
From whom will the money be collected? Will it be collected from the tenant, the tenant and his wife jointly, and severally from other individuals as well? I do not think that this has been thought out.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and exciting suggestion. If the responsibility is on the regional authority, on his reading of the Bill what objection would there be if it decided to contract out the service to the electricity board? Surely there would be nothing to prevent the authority from doing that?

Mr. Brown: I have an open mind on the matter. I cannot see any ideological reason—if that is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to extract from me — or practical reason why the levying and collecting authority should not use any means that it wants to use to collect the money. I am saying that it is not the responsibility of a housing authority. The Government should make a clean break with the existing practice. I think that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities wants it left to the discretion of local authorities. I do not know whether I am right in that, because I have forgotten whether we got submissions from COSLA about that. I hope the Minister will at least give some assurance that in consultation he will be willing to look at this.
It is almost impossible to go back over all the suggestions that I and other Committee members made. The Bill might go through, but, even at this late stage, will he consider with the relevant authorities whether there is merit in the suggestion of leaving it entirely to the levying and collecting authority to decide, after consultation, the best way to approach the matter?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) spoke about what I had or had not said in Committee when dealing with matters covered by the earlier Government amendments. By implication, he accused me of discourtesy for failing to show a degree of understanding of his point. For the sake of the record, I draw his attention to column 1155 of the Committee proceedings on 12 February. Admittedly not in response to arguments by him but in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie), I said:
My initial resistance to the amendment was diffident, as there is something in the case of the hon. Member for Cathcart. Mine was perhaps a probing resistance.
If the hon. Member for Cathcart will withdraw his amendment, I shall reflect on the points that have been made and see whether it is possible to find a form of wording that will ensure that a person is made fully aware of his debt." — [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 12 February 1987; c.1155.]
I do not think that I could have trailed my sympathy for his case more clearly than that.

Mr. Maxton: I unreservedly withdraw any remark that I made against the hon. Gentleman. It was said in the

Committee that the hon. Gentleman had considerably more grace than his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram)

Mr. Lang: I hope that my subsequent remarks in the debate will not ruin my record. I might even suffer the fate that I suffered from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who said that he could do business with me.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Minister say whether he or any of his Front Bench colleagues are now or ever have been associated with the Tory Reform Group?

Mr. Lang: I am a broad member of a broad church in this party. I am not a member of the Tory Reform Group.
Amendment No. 168 would change the arrangements whereby housing bodies, district councils, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new town corporations would be required by the Bill to collect the personal community charge payable by residents in houses let to them. The amendment would make such arrangements subject to the discretion of the levying authority, and would restrict them to the collection of the personal community charges of tenants and their spouses. As the hon. Member for Cathcart said, these issues were fully debated in Committee and I accept that he persists in a different view from that expressed by the Government at that time.
At present, housing bodies are responsible for collecting the rates along with the rent on houses let by them. In considering the arrangements for the collection of personal community charges from people living in council houses and similar accommodation, it seems sensible that housing authorities should continue to deal with the personal community charge liability of the present rateable occupiers of their houses and the spouses of such people.
The amendment raises three questions — whether these arrangements should be mandatory, or, as the amendment proposes, at the discretion of the levying authority, and whether housing bodies should be required or enabled to collect the personal community charge from people living in the houses which they let, other than tenants and spouses. On the question whether the arrangements should be mandatory or discretionary, we think that the advantages of certainty about how the system should operate outweigh the argument that some flexibility would be desirable.
As I shall mention again later, the arrangements that we propose broadly allow for the equal division of the burden of collection of personal community charges between districts and regions. There is clear advantage in that provision being set up throughout the country. The hon. Member for Cathcart spoke about administrative complications. It was precisely with that in mind that we decided on a sensible approach. I am reluctant to accept that different arrangements should apply in different areas.

Mr. Craigen: Ministers have always said that this is a personal tax and not an in-house tax. They do not accept that there are likely to be more administrative difficulties under the new system than there are under the existing system. Therefore, why is he so resistant to a discretionary arrangement in this instance?

Mr. Lang: Administrative simplicity and certainty are better secured by the approach that we are taking. The Opposition constantly raise the bogy of administrative difficulties. They are overstating those difficulties and in Committee it became increasingly apparent that the administration will not be as complicated as they fear.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister will admit that housing authorities cannot use exactly the same system to collect the personal community charge as they use to collect rents. Therefore, each housing authority will have to establish a collection service for the personal community charge. If that is the case, how can he possibly say that there will not be a large administrative cost and large numbers of people employed to administer the scheme?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman raises undue difficulties. Of course the system is different and is not a direct parallel to the collection of rents. In administrative terms it is sensible to take the approach that we are taking, because it will be less complicated than the hon. Gentleman anticipates and there will be far greater overlap in the administration than he suggests.
The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) asked about the Rating and Valuation Association's submission. I should certainly be willing to consider further the association's comments to see whether there is substance in them. On the matter of whether all residents in local authority and similar houses should have the personal community charge collected by housing bodies, we must consider, first, the extent to which this would as a matter of principle be a sensible arrangement, and certainly we would need to consider the caseload involved.
As a matter of principle, a decision must be taken as to whether non-dependants who are living in council houses should be dealt with, for community charge purposes, by the levying authority—the regional council in the two-tier areas — or the housing bodies. In all cases, these people will represent a new group, since they will not, at present, be responsible for making any payment towards local taxation.
We have taken the view that it would be sensible for housing bodies, rather than the regional council, as levying authority, to have the responsibility for collecting the personal community charge in such cases. There are two main reasons for that. First, it would be strange if non-dependents in council houses were to receive community charge bills from a different authority from the tenants and their spouses, and they then had to pay the personal community charge by a different instalment system from that which applies to tenants and their spouses. That would lead to confusion in people's minds as to what the personal community charge was and when payments became due.
Secondly, housing bodies will already have some information — I accept, not comprehensive information—on non-dependants living in houses, since they are already responsible for administering housing benefit. The presence of non-dependants is relevant to the assessment for housing benefit purposes of the tenant. If an argument is a good one, it bears repetition, but obviously it has not got through to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
I accept that these arguments, although strong, are not conclusive, and I would have been prepared to consider

whether the personal community charges of non-dependants in council houses should be collected by the levying authority if it had been clearly shown that the other arrangement would have radically altered the balance of responsibility for collection of local tax payments as between the two tiers of local government. That is not the case at present.
Of the 2 million ratepayers in Scotland, slightly fewer than 1 million live in council houses and have their rates collected by housing bodies. We estimate that, of the total number of non-dependents in Scotland from whom the personal community charge will have to be collected, about half live in council houses. Thus, if the responsibility for collection is to be divided in the manner that we propose, housing bodies will continue to be responsible for just under half of the total caseload. We consider that that is fair and equitable. It reinforces our conclusion that the division that we have proposed is right.
I must resist the hon. Gentleman's amendment and urge the House to support the Government's amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 135, in page 33, line 40, after 'charge', insert

'(or any outstanding balance thereof)'.

No. 136, in page 34, line 4, at end insert

'in such instalments and at such times as the housing body may determine'.

No. 137, in page 34, line 19, at end insert—

'(4A) Where—
(a) a community charge payable by a person in accordance with this paragraph is payable by instalments.
(b) instalments amounting to a quarter or more of that charge are due but unpaid; and
(c) the housing body give the person notice in writing of the effect of this sub-paragraph,
then, if these instalments have not been paid within seven days of the sending of that notice, the whole amount of that charge for the financial year in respect of which it was imposed shall, so far as not paid, become payable by him.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 35, line 20, leave out paragraph 7.
As the House will have gathered — this is not a complex matter — this amendment deals with the collection of the community charge. We tabled the amendment because we wish to ask some questions and get some further advice from the Minister about the recovery of arrears, which is a controversial matter and one which has raised a good deal of foreboding among many people who have a good deal of experience in this sector. Clearly we do not expect the Minister to remove the power to collect arrears; that would be going a little too far, although a more adequate measure might be put in at another stage if this amendment were accepted.
Our main purpose is to find out a little about a subject which is fraught with difficulty. I do not say that in a sarcastic manner, but there are problems involved.
The main way in which community charge arrears will be gathered is by use of the summary warrant. The Minister will say, almost certainly, that that is a well-tried procedure which has been used in the case of rates arrears for a long time and which has led to few problems. As the Minister will appreciate, the community charge is a substantial matter. It is difficult to make estimates, but the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers, in a memorandum, considered that the increase in warrants


would be fourfold. We shall be talking about a large number of warrants. Summary warrants will be flying around all over the place. The question is, once they have been issued, can and how will they be enforced?
The Minister would make great virtue of the fact that an enormous number of people are being brought into the local taxation system for the first time. Not only are they large in number; they are mobile in a sense that a householder is not. One of the virtues of rates—even those who are glorying in the possibility of the domestic rates system being abolished will accept this—is that they are easy to collect because they are a tax on property, which, by and large, is static. Therefore, the number of people involved is limited to the householder, who is tied to the house. The amount of money involved is likely to be higher in each case than with the community charge.
The community charge will have a scatter effect which, I suspect, will produce a large number of cases of arrears, some of which will involve extremely small amounts. We are thus in a completely different situation in terms of practicalities. That destroys the perhaps too easy answer that we are creating fears where they need not be because we are using an existing system which is familiar to all rating authorities.
I want to stress the point about the amount of the community charge. It is not just that the community charge will be smaller than the average rates bill but paid by a larger number of people, but in many cases—not necessarily because of this reform but because of the activities of the Department of Health and Social Security — people will face the prospect of paying only 20 per cent. of the community charge. No one knows the exact figure, but that is the rule of thumb that even Ministers have been using for illustrative purposes. Therefore, it is not unfair to advance that example.
In my constituency, probably more than 50 or 60 per cent. of the adult population will qualify for some form of rebate, and many of them will be paying as little as 20 per cent. Therefore, we are looking at a proliferation and multiplicity of debts that may, in the early days of the community charge system, the early 1990s, merely be debts of £30, £40 or £50. The problems that that will create will be considerable.
It may be even more complicated than that. The Minister will recognise that, and I hope that he will say how he expects it to be dealt with. I am sorry to take a parochial example, but it is one that is familiar to me. I represent and live in a constituency on the edge of Glasgow. It is often referred to as a peripheral housing estate. There is an enormous amount of coming and going between, for example, the Drumchapel housing estate and Clydebank. That takes the form of social movement and, in the good old days, it used to take the form of employment movement. A large number of my constituents used to work for Singer sewing machines, for example, and in the yards at Clydebank, UIE and John Brown.
It is not unusual—I frequently come across this—for families to be split between Clydebank and my part of Glasgow. It is not uncommon for a youngster to move, for no sinister purpose—I am not trying to construct a conspiracy to avoid the poll tax — between his grandparents in Clydebank and his parents or other members of the family in Garscadden. The result of that

may be that someone will be due to pay 20 per cent. of his poll tax for two thirds of the year in Glasgow and one third of the year in Clydebank.
We are thus talking about the apportionment of a small percentage of only part of the poll tax in each area. Presumably the debt still has to be honoured. It may be, for various reasons, that the debt will not be honoured. That may be more due to inattention and carelessness or a failure to have due regard to the provisions of section 20 of what will by then be the Act. That will throw up substantial problems of recovery, which the Government have brushed aside with the suggestion that we are squawking a little too much about something which, with a little ingenuity, could be handled comfortably. However, I want to make it clear now that I do not think that it will be handled very comfortably indeed. I invite the Minister to look at these matters again with some care, and, I hope, some sympathy.
I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill. Inevitably, someone in that position tends to drop out of the day-to-day developments in the argument and I make no apology for that. However, problems still remain and it would be useful if the Minister addressed himself to some of them.
As I understand it, it is proposed that a summary warrant will be applied for. The levying authority will apply to the sheriff asserting that there is a debt. It will have to establish, presumably by means of recorded delivery slips and so on, that written notice has been given to the debtor requiring payment within 14 days and that that period has expired without payment being made before it can go ahead.
5.30 pm
That is rather more plausible as a method when talking about one householder in a house which is his residence. It is much more difficult to be satisfied that that message has been delivered to the 19 or 20-year-old who may be working on a building site but whose home may originally have been, and may nominally still be, 15 Smith street or 63 Brown street, or wherever the bill has been sent. There will be considerable difficulties in establishing beyond doubt and satisfactorily that written notice has reached the young person concerned. No doubt the Minister dealt with that point in Committee, but I am not entirely happy that that will be as watertight as some of us would like.
There is little doubt that the summary warrant will be issued if application is made, but then there will be the problem of enforcing it and what diligence is used. The methods are:


"(a) a poinding and sale;
(b) an arrestment and action of furthcoming or sale."
I can remember—this was referred to in our debates before the Bill was discussed in Committee — that considerable reservations were expressed by the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers about the present legal situation. The Minister may be able to assure me that those have been fully dealt with, but they are worth mentioning in passing. The practical one is simply identifying the goods that can be poinded. It is not always immediately obvious what is owned by a householder and what may be owned by the rest of the family — the young man concerned or by his siblings. It will be extremely difficult for the sheriff officers to act in such circumstances.

Mr. James Wallace: A further point occurs to me, which may have been dealt with in Committee. Under the present rating system, if a summary warrant is sought the jurisdiction for the sheriff granting that is heritable property within his jurisdiction. As the community charge is a personal matter, has the hon. Gentleman or the Minister given any thought to what the basis of jurisdiction will be if the person upon whom the community charge is exigible as levied is no longer within the shrieval jurisdiction?

Mr. Dewar: That is the sort of exchange that makes me regret that I was not a member of the Committee. I probably have not given enough thought to that. It is an interesting point. It puts rather more neatly what I was fumbling towards when I referred to the difficulties of ensuring that the 14-day notice has been served on someone who may not be at home or may be moving between a variety of different premises.
Furthermore, there is the problem, as I said, once we get to that stage, of identifying the goods. No doubt the sheriff officers' point has been answered, but I remember that they had some doubts about their legal right forcibly to enter premises. That was based upon the fact the debtor was the householder. I am not sure whether that point has been adequately met, but I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that.
Let me move on to one of the main issues that I wish to raise. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) that we had a useful memorandum from the Rating and Valuation Association quite late in the day—it was dated 13 February. I know that the Government will not dissent from that because the Secretary of State was praying it in aid yesterday as an example of support for his amendment introducing the clean break and getting rid of the transitional period.
In its memorandum the Rating and Valuation Association raises several general and specific points about the collection and recovery of arrears which we are entitled to put to the Minister because they arise in the paragraph that the amendment seeks to excise. Let me remind the Minister that paragraph 16(5) of the memorandum says:
The Government should be in no doubt that the relative yield from Community Charges will be considerably less than that from Domestic Rates. Community Charges will be easily avoided and considerably more expensive to collect than domestic rates.
We should always bear that point in mind because it strikes at the certainty of revenue expectation for the local authority and it adds considerably to the administrative costs.
Many of the calculations that Ministers have been making, assuming that the community charge was in operation in the current year, have, I suspect, been based on optimistic assumptions of what the yield and collection will be. I suspect that a considerably higher community charge would have to be imposed to allow for the almost inevitable shortfall given the sort of complications and difficulties to which I have been referring. Certainly the Rating and Valuation Association has no doubt that that is a considerable problem.
In paragraph 15(4) of its memorandum, the Rating and Valuation Association says:
It is considered that recovery of Community Charges will be considerably more difficult than recovery of rates, particularly from non-tenants/owners (especially those in receipt of unemployment and supplementary benefit, many of whom will have little or no poindable assets. The

Government's stated intention is that everyone will be expected to pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of the charge; if this is truly the intention, local authorities will require the power to arrest unemployment, supplementary and other state benefits or alternatively statutory provision being made to allow, at the request of the local authority, deduction at source of community charges from state benefits. If either of these alternatives are not acceptable it is considered that recovery of community charges from such cases will prove to be virtually impossible.
"Virtually impossible" is strong language from a rather sober group of people.
I had correspondence with the Secretary of State on this matter at the beginning and he made it clear to me—I presume that there has been no change in the official position—that there was no question of, for example, compulsory deduction from benefit at the request of the local authority; that any such arrangement would have to be voluntary, entered into after arrears had arisen, and there would be no question of it being done unilaterally by the local authority on the basis of a summary warrant. I also understand that there would be no possibility either of arrestment of benefit which would clearly be an extraordinarily serious matter given the financial circumstances of people who are dependent upon benefit.
I am not trying to misrepresent the Minister's position. I presume that he is taking the sensible view that both those requests from the Rating and Valuation Association cannot be granted, although we all understand why that has been raised. The association is saying that if those doors are closed, in its view the collection of the community charge from a large number of people will be virtually impossible.
That is something which the Minister must take seriously. The amendments invites the Minister to go away and think about the matter ab initio. Given those comments, he should consider his position carefully.
The Rating and Valuation Association continues:
The administrative costs falling on local authorities in implementation of the Bill will be considerable and authorities must be given sufficient additional resources which will enable them to implement the provisions of the Bill.
I fear that that is knocking at a door that is firmly bolted and barred, but it is a fair point for the Minister to consider.
There are two other minor points. One relates to the main issue that I raised, the association's view that a local authority should have the right to waive collection — I would call it the introduction of a de minimis rule—if the debt is below a certain amount.
My final point is a small detail. In the association's document there is an inquiry about the provision for the repayment of community charges paid in error. As the Minister knows, there is such a provision in the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963. I am informed that there is no apparent parallel provision in the legislation. I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that. I say that with some feeling, having been fortunate enough to have had returned to me by post two £12 cheques for parking tickets that had apparently been paid twice. I am unlikely to make that mistake with my community charge, but if I did so I should' like to think that I could get the money back. I commend! that point to the Minister.
However, the serious point that I am making concerns the spread of debt that is likely to result from this measure and the problem of properly getting a summary warrant.


The undoubted view of the Rating and Valuation Association is that that will not be possible without powers which this House would be unwilling to grant and that, to be fair, Ministers would be unlikely to want. However, without those powers, it would not be possible to administer the system. I put that point to the Minister because it is important that he gives some thought to it.
I have also been reading — it is interesting that it should come from this source—the now well-known memorandum that was published today by the Tory Reform Group. I have no doubt that this will crop up later—

Mr. Rifkind: The English group.

Mr. Dewar: Yes. I am glad to see that the Minister is such a strong devolutionist when expediency drives. Perhaps that is a reversion to first principles. I agree that the Scots have different views. I do not for a moment dispute their right to those different views, but the arguments, the biting analysis from that particular source, cannot easily be shrugged off. The point that I was about to make was that they too express grave doubts about the way in which these matters will work in practice. They express doubts especially about the 20 per cent. rule. They make the simple point — with which I certainly have some sympathy as it restates the point that I have been hammering during the past 10 minutes—that, in effect, the 20 per cent. amount will be so small that the administrative cost of recovery will be larger than any conceivable yield that would be forthcoming. I quote that additional source as something that the Minister may wish to consider.
I have raised one or two of the many points that could have been raised under this amendment, but I have given a flavour of the doubts that we have about its practicality. I hope that the Minister can say something to reassure me that a little more thought has gone into this Bill in general political principles than is apparent and that he can deal with some of the real and substantial technical objections which are still there for all to see and are being pressed upon him by sources that he may feel are slightly less partial than me.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am glad that this amendment has been moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) because it enables us to return to matters that were considered at some length in Committee. As they were considered at length in Committee, it is not necessary to expatiate on them and to cover the same ground today, but I wish to take the opportunity that this amendment offers to ask the Minister whether he has given any further thought to whether the clause which the amendment seeks to delete, which provides a permissive power to the levying authority to pursue the recovery of arrears, is adequate to meet needs and whether the permissive power can be used to enable a local authority to pursue a policy of not seeking to recover arrears from classes of people who are liable to pay the community charge, and to whom a notice has been issued?

Mr. Maxton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, like myself, was slightly surprised, following the debate in Committee, that there was not an amendment from the hon. Member

for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) replacing the word "may" with the word "shall", as he expressed considerable concern that local authorities might opt out of taking people who owed them £50 to a sheriff's court.

Mr. Maclennan: I am surprised at that, in view of the debate that we had in Committee. I am also rather surprised by the absence of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) from our deliberations today. However, I am more concerned with the attitude of the Government and their view on this.
I wish to put to the Minister a point that was not made in Committee. Earlier, he argued that there might be a fiduciary duty on the other payers of a community charge to seek to recover a debt even though only a permissive power is given by the Bill. However, because of the extreme complexity of the task and the difficulty of administering a tax of this sort, when so many of those to whom it applies are mobile, there must be cases in which it would be unreasonable for a local authority to seek to pursue the debt because the cost of pursuing the arrears would rapidly exceed the amount owed.
Is the Minister prepared to say that the procedures set out in paragraph 7 are not expensive in view of the sums of money at stake? Not having been a practitioner at the Scots Bar, I should be interested to know what it would cost to go through the full procedure of diligence described, the seeking of a summary warrant and the pursuance by diligence of "a poinding and sale" or
an arrestment and action of furthcoming or sale.
How much will it cost to go through all that for one defaulter who has failed to pay an instalment of community charge?

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but what the Bill involves in relation to collection already happens in relation to non-payment of rates. The unfortunate factor is that if someone defaults on payment and poindings and sales are carried out, the costs are borne by the debtor.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, they are borne by the debtor, but that presupposes that it is possible to track down the debtor. I fully defer to the professional expertise of the hon. Gentleman, but—

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is right. When the sheriff's officer goes to poind, collect and sell the goods, he must write his own expenses out of that. In many cases, especially with young people, the sort of goods that they have will not even cover the community charge that they owe, let alone any costs that may be involved in that process. Therefore, the local authority will have to bear the cost.

Mr. Maclennan: That is precisely the point. Many young people moving around the country, sometimes from one family home to another, have no more than what they stand up in, and they will not yield arrears because they have nothing to yield. I should very much like to know what is supposed to happen in those circumstances. What duty is there on a local authority to pursue such people? Was it to cover this situation — to allow the local authority not to pursue arrears—that the paragraph was originally couched in permissive rather than mandatory language?

Mr. Wallace: I do not wish to labour the point after the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), but what will be the basis of jurisdiction for the sheriff in any such case? My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the costs of diligence being executed, and the costs having to be borne by the defender. I am sure that it will come as no surprise to hon. Members to know that in my constituency it can often be a considerable cost when one takes into account not only the fees but the outlays. On occasion, there have been complaints—usually from the creditor rather than from the debtor—of the infrequent visits by sheriff officers and messengers-at-arms to the islands communities.
In pursuing one such case I was made aware that in the 1960s some form of diligence was proposed which would have made enforcement easier in remote rural communities. I have not been able to track down the report, and I do not expect the Minister to reply to this now, but I should be grateful if he would agree to consider ways of making the enforcement of community charge debts simpler in remoter communities. At present, particularly when one takes into account the outlays that might be incurred, the outlays could be greater than the community charge that gave rise to the initial debt. If the Minister will consider ways in which the outlays and expenses might be reduced, I should be grateful.

Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has left the Chamber for the moment. I shall try to leave my response to his questions until he returns.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) raised again on the Floor of the House the same point that he raised with some force in Committee. He referred to the duty on a levying authority to recover outstanding community charges. In Committee, during consideration of schedule 2(7), the question arose as to whether a levying authority was under a duty to recover arrears of community charge. The point was made, and accepted, that there is no express provision in the Bill to that effect, nor is there any express statutory provision in relation to the recovery of rates under section 247 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947. But there is well-established case law, which starts with the case of Roberts v. Hopwood in 1925 — to be found in All England Reports 2, page 24—that a local authority is under a duty to carry out its functions in a businesslike manner, with reasonable care, skill and caution and with a due and alert regard to the interests of its ratepayers. That is what is normally referred to in England as the fiduciary duty. The levying authority is required to comply with its duty in exercising its functions to collect rates, and of it fails to do so, the ordinary remedy against a local authority for failing to comply with its duties will be available—judicial default action and audit control.
I see no reason why a levying authority would not be required to comply with a similar duty in exercising its function to collect the community charge. The levying authority will be required to discharge that function with reasonable regard to the interests of the community charge payers and, obviously, its ratepayers in a businesslike manner and with reasonable care and skill. For that reason, I am satisfied that there is no need to include any provision in the Bill on that point. Arguments were put forward in Committee that there should be a firmer

provision requiring an authority to recover outstanding community charges, but as I said at the time, the effect would be either declamatory—I am not keen on seeing declamatory provisions in legislation and I doubt whether many others are—or it would impose an absolute duty—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) apparently finds something funny in the idea of declamatory provisions. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to give way. I think that he is enjoying a recollection of some other matter. Perhaps he will let us into the secret later.
The only other option would be to have an absolute duty. I do not believe that any hon. Member would think that that was the right course because there may be occasions when it is clear that recovery would be impossible and an absolute duty would require an authority to pursue impossible debts regardless. Therefore, relying on what is referred to in England as a fiduciary duty appears to be the right way to proceed.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that this matter might come up on other occasions today, so I do not want to go into detail. I have not had time to read the document fully, but the recommendations of the English Tory Reform Group—

Mr. Home Robertson: English? It does not say that.

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman reads the document, he will find that it refers to England and Wales.
Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that he thought that the document was splendid stuff and that it had cheered him up. That shows how easy it is to cheer him up and how much he needs to be cheered up. It struck me as slightly surprising because of the premise upon which the whole document is based, as far as I could see, and which appears on page 2. The document states that one of the reasons why the system needs reform is as follows:
The decay of local government can be traced to the loss of democratic accountability and the disintegration of the traditional Labour Party.
The document also states:
the Labour Party fell into decline and decay. As its local membership and vigour fell away, it came more and more under the control of tightly knit bands of left-wing extremists. This became very true of the inner cities, where Labour was strongest, and the old traditional Labour Party was at its most vulnerable.
I am glad that that cheers up the hon. Member for Garscadden. It shows his views on the behaviour of certain Labour councils in Britain today.
I return to the specific point about England and Wales. It may interest the House to know that the Scottish Tory Reform Group this afternoon issued its own statement, in which it avers its support for the community charge, as it always has done, and dissociates itself from the England and Wales report.

Mr. Wilson: When did the Minister contact Conservative Central Office with the request for it to issue an immediate disclaimer?

Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman follows Conservative politics in Scotland, he will find that the Scottish Tory Reform Group is in favour of the Bill. It always has been and has previously expressed concern about the line taken by the Tory Reform Group down south, which, equally, has always been against the community charge. There is nothing particularly new in


the proposals or in the positions north and south of the border. If the hon. Member for Garscadden wishes to raise that matter later, I have several other interesting passages that I am sure he would like to hear about.
Reference was made to the repayment of sums not due. Government amendment No. 138, to which I spoke yesterday, made the provision that is sought. Government amendment No. 138 would put at the end of schedule 2 the heading:
"Repayment of sums not due"
and the words:
A levying authority to whom there has been paid by way of any community charge any sum which (for whatever reason) is not due shall repay that sum or arrange for its repayment.
So that covers that particular point.
6 pm
Turning to the general debate, into which I think the question of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) fell, I quite understand the concerns of hon. Members as to the effectiveness of the procedures proposed for the recovery of the arrears of community charges, particularly in relation to debts incurred by people who at present have no liability for taxation payments. However, I think that those concerns have been considerably exaggerated and I do not expect serious difficulties in those areas.
The first point that has to be made is that the system that we propose will discourage people from getting into significant arrears in the first place. The provision for the standard method of payment of the community charge to be 12 monthly instalments will mean that each payment will be a modest amount of money. In cases in which people on low incomes may nevertheless find difficulty in meeting the full community charge payment, the availability of rebates will further reduce the net payment to be made. In addition, each payment will be immediately due in the month in which it is incurred. This contrasts with the present arrangements for rates, whereby in many cases the date upon which payment becomes due is unclear and in practice authorities tend not to start recovery action in relation to any arrears until September of the financial year in which the rates are payable. This inevitably means that where arrears have built up they have already reached a considerable sum before recovery action can be taken. Under the community charge system, levying authorities will be able to initiate earlier and thus, by definition, more effective recovery action.

Mr. Maxton: I take the Minister's point in that somebody who is rebated may well be only £12 or £15 in debt at the end of, say, three months, but once that three months point is reached he may well be still in arrears under the terms of the Minister's Bill. Then, of course, the total amount for the whole year becomes liable to payment.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman misses the point, which is that the simplicity of the system in many ways, compared with that which now exists, is more likely to ensure that people pay on a regular basis. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Garscadden for not putting the argument that somehow we would find vast numbers of people deliberately setting out to avoid payment of the community charge, because I would find that very hard to

accept. I genuinely believe that in Scotland people by and large are prepared to pay what is due from them. The hon. Member for Garscadden puts his hands on his head, but I am sure that he would not suggest that the bulk of the Scottish people would deliberately set out to avoid paying the community charge.
We must therefore look at this in perspective. I shall not pursue the mystery, as far as I am concerned, of the hon. Member's parking tickets, but I am sure that on another occasion he will explain to me how that arose.

Mr. Dewar: I referred to the estimates of the community charges for current years on the assumption that the system was in being. Was any calculation built in for under-collection, for under-achieving, and the likely gap between the percentages achieved under the rating system and under the community charge system? Do the Government have any view on that?

Mr. Ancram: I do not think that it is possible to give definitive figures on a matter of that sort — I am sure that the hon. Member would be surprised if I tried to do so—but it is important to note that the new system is relatively simpler than the present system and thus more likely to be understood. There is a more regular system of payment, and so on, and this is likely, if anything, to reduce the estimates of default which were put forward by the Society of Messengers-at-Arms and Sheriff Officers and referred to by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I do not think that they took that strictly into account, but it is a valid point and we are having a serious debate, so it is important that we accept that fact.
In the relatively rare cases, therefore, in which people fall into arrears, the provisions that we propose will allow flexible response by the levying authority. There is provision, of course, for informal reminders, followed by final notices to people who still have not paid. and I believe that these are likely to secure payment in the majority of outstanding cases. In the remainder, the summary warrant procedure which, as the hon. Member for Garscadden admitted, is already well precedented for the recovery of rates debts, is a cheap and effective way of seeking payment. In only a few cases is it necessary to go through the full series of steps leading up to poinding and the possibility, in the last instance, of a warrant sale. A high proportion of those debts still outstanding will be settled as soon as a summary warrant is granted without the necessity for further steps. I should perhaps remind the House that last night when we dealt with the amendment on joint and several liability I made it clear that the summary warrant procedure would not be operated in those cases.
The assertions that I am making are not simply pious hopes because all the evidence from the rating system shows that the informal stages of debt recovery—reminders and follow-up action—together with the early formal procedures through the use of summary warrants will secure payment in the vast majority of cases. The evidence for this is contained in the Scottish Law Commission's report on diligence and debtor protection, which says that in Lothian and Strathclyde in 1979–80 and 1980–81, of the 7,500 cases in Lothian and the 38,500 in Strathclyde in which a summary warrant was obtained against a debtor, only seven cases in each region led to a warrant sale being executed. That shows that those preliminary stages are, by and large, effective. It is backed


up by more recent evidence from Strathclyde suggesting that, of the 131,000 ratepayers who fell into arrears in 1985–86, 82,000 paid the bill at final notice stage and a further 25,000 settled when summary warrants were obtained.
It would, of course, be wrong of me to suggest that there will be no problems in this area. It is one of the major objectives of the Bill to spread the local tax base, and that inevitably means that larger numbers of people will face local taxation bills. In the nature of things there is likely to be a larger number of people falling into community charge arrears than into rate arrears. But while nobody in the House can make a confident prediction of how large these numbers will be, I seriously contend that the fact that each bill will be considerably smaller than the average rates bill makes it most unlikely that the increase in numbers of cases will be very large.
A number of specific points were put to me and I will try to answer the main ones.
First, the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland intervened on the hon. Member for Garscadden to ask a question about jurisdiction. The bases of jurisdiction under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 are the debtor's domicile and the place where the debt was incurred. There will, therefore, be no difficulty even if the debtor changes his residence. That is an established form of jurisdiction which will continue to apply.
Secondly, there can be problems in the area of the ownership of goods. There are problems in this area at the moment, but I do not think that that would lead the hon. Member to suggest that the system for the recovery of rates is wrong. All sheriff officers in general poindings face the problem of identification of the owners of the goods. Basically, where this happens, I understand, the procedure is to ask those present who owns what, and by and large that produces a satisfactory response.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to clarify the position. Is it domicile "arid" the place of the debt or is it domicile "or" the place of the debt? Domicile really relates to a country—one can be Scots domiciled or English domiciled. Are we talking about domicile in relation to a particular sheriffdom?

Mr. Ancram: They are alternatives, because it would otherwise be restrictive rather than expansive in terms of providing a base. Domicile in the sense in which I used it refers to the place where the person lives, particularly under this Bill. The registration of sole or main residence forms the basis of the Bill and will be taken, presumably, to be the place where the person lives.
Thirdly, the power of entry under a summary warrant is there and is for the purpose of executing a poinding. So sheriff officers can enter a third party's premises for that purpose.
There is a great deal of detail in the way in which summary warrants and so on are to be operated. As time is restricted, it is worth reminding the House that this whole area will be debated very soon when the Debtors (Scotland) Bill comes before the House, when the adjustments being made to the present system can be well canvassed and aired. Obviously, those procedures will be provided by that legislation and will form the basis of recovery under this Bill. I hope that the House will agree that, rather than go into the detailed aspects of how it operates, those matters should be raised when we debate legislation.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister agree with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the possible arrestment of social security benefits and the recovery of arrears through that source?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made it clear that he had already received a reply from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, and the position is as he set out in that reply. The answer is no, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
It is inevitable that some people will slip through the net when the community charge is collected. It is difficult to think of any system of taxation that is 100 per cent. effective in either full collection or full recovery. We accept that there is a problem and that it may be slightly larger than that with the present rating system. The Bill provides a mechanism whereby recovery can be effected. Some of the assertions that have been made are exaggerated, and I am confident that the principles of the Bill will be effective in securing recovery of the community charges due. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Garscadden to withdraw the amendment—as I am sure that he will, in view of what he said in his speech.

Mr. Dewar: I do not wish to delay my hon. Friends. I shall withdraw the amendment, although I still feel unconvinced and somewhat gloomy about the prospects. No doubt there will be other occasions on which to argue these matters.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 35, line 20, leave out '(4)' and insert '(3A) to'.

No. 159, in page 35, line 43, at end insert—
'(3A) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) above does not apply to the recovery from a person of arrears of community charge for which that person is liable by virtue only of section 10(6) of this Act.'

No. 138, in page 36, line 22, at end insert—
'Repayment of sums not due
9. A levying authority to whom there has been paid by way of any community charge any sum which (for whatever reason) is not due shall repay that sum or arrange for its repayment.'—[Mr. Ancram.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 24

REDUCTION OF COMMUNITY CHARGES

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 20, line 4, leave out clause 24.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we shall take the following : Amendment No. 171, in page 36, line 23, leave out schedule 3.
Government amendments Nos. 139 to 143.

Mr. Home Robertson: The effect of amendment No. 170 is to delete clause 4, which in turn would delete schedule 3. The amendment deals with a mechanism whereby the Secretary of State can claw back grant and effectively take control of the budgets of local authorities in Scotland. At the same time, we are debating Government amendments Nos. 139 to 143, which represent a minor concession to points that were made in Committee. They remove the provisions in the clause which would enable the Secretary of State:
for the purposes of giving full effect to


this paragraph
by order modify any enactment … in its application to the determination, calculation, levy, collection or payment of a community charge.
That seems an extraordinary power to put into the hands of the Secretary of State, let alone this Secretary of State. There should not be such open-ended enabling powers in any legislation. I am glad that the Minister is prepared to think again about that point. I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies.
The intolerable basic principles of schedule 3 remain intact. I refer to powers that were established in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981, which have been made more and more draconian by a series of subsequent Acts, and which are being further refined in the Bill as they will affect the new community charge system.
Those powers strike at the very heart of the principle of local democracy in Scotland. The Secretary of State began by putting Scottish local authorities into a statutory straitjacket of guidelines. He then cut the rate support grant in successive years, up to a total cumulative value of Tory cuts in rate support grant since 1968 of £1,750 million. That is equivalent to more than a full year's rates bill for every ratepayer in Scotland. The Secretary of State left our local councils with an intolerable choice of either forcing up their rates or cutting important services, such as education, support for old people and the disabled and so on. It is humbug for the Government to suggest that they are protecting the ratepayers or the future poll tax payers, while year after year they cut the rate support grant.
6.15 pm
When some local authorities decided that they were not prepared to cut services and therefore had no option other than to increase the rates, the Secretary of State intervened to close that door. He gave himself the power to put orders through Parliament to fix the budgets of individual Scottish local authorities. That raised the rather bizarre prospect of this multinational Parliament turning itself temporarily into a town hall to strike the rates for individual local authorities.
Those ludicrous forays by the Secretary of State in pursuit of his vendetta against local authorities have been played out in this Chamber. Stirling district council was the first authority to catch it. Its rate support grant was cut on 20 July 1982. Then there was the night of the long knives on 21 July 1983, when the Lothian regional councils and the district councils of Stirling, and Kirkcaldy were subjected to collective action and asked to adjust their rates regardless of the wishes of the people who elected them. The Secretary of State has the power to ride roughshod over locally elected councils, and that power is now being transplanted into this poll tax Bill.
The whole selective action machinery turns on an assessment by the Secretary of State of whether a local council's budget is excessive and unreasonable. As the Minister keeps reminding us, those terms originated in the Act introduced by a Labour Government in 1966.

Mr. Ancram: Tell us about it.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister challenges me to tell him about it. Section 5 of the 1966 Act allowed the Secretary of State to take action against a local authority

when he felt that its expenditure was excessive or unreasonable. The Act has other powers. It states that the Secretary of State could also take action if he was satisfied
that a local authority…has failed to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions".
At least that was even-handed legislation, which is more than can be said for the way that the Government have handled this subject.
Of course, I do not suppose that back in 1966 anybody considered the possibility of there being in office such an excessive, unreasonable and unrepresentive Secretary of State as there is today.

Mr. Ancram: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his party accepted in 1966—it must have, or it would not have passed the legislation—that there could be occasions when expenditure was excessive and unreasonable, and that therefore the Secretary of State should take action against that authority?

Mr. Home Robertson: That was the case then and that was the principle for which we legislated. Obviously, there is a need for such residual powers. However, I do not think that anyone envisaged that the powers would be exercised in the sort of circumstances in which the Government have exercised them.
I look forward to the day—although I hope that it will not be necessary—when a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland can intervene to ensure that local authorities that are defaulting on the standards of provision for their people come up to scratch. Let us consider all the circumstances—

Mr. Maclennan: I do not understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. He has just criticised the Minister for saying that he would intervene to reduce unreasonable expenditure against the wishes of the local electorate. Is he saying that he would choose to intervene against the wishes of the electorate?

Mr. Home Robertson: I was simply drawing attention to the terms of the 1966 Act. I deplore any intervention, other than in the most extreme circumstances, against locally elected authorities. My party stands for democratic accountability and local democracy in Scotland.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Home Robertson: This Bill is guillotined and I am determined to continue with my speech in my own way.—[Interruption.] We are having some difficulty. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher) will control himself. He is aware that, as the Bill is subject to a guillotine, we do not have as much time as we would like.
Let us consider the circumstances of the selective action taken by the Secretary of State against Glasgow district council in July 1983. It started with the report to the House that led to the reduction of Glasgow district council's budget. Initially, the Secretary of State claimed in his report that in his—possibly biased—opinion Glasgow district council's budget was "excessive and unreasonable". The district council responded and, in due course, both report and response were laid before the House. The debate on the Floor of the House lasted one and a half hours and the outcome was decided by a vote. The Division list for that vote makes very interesting reading.
The debate concerned the internal affairs of Glasgow district council. Not one Glasgow Member voted in favour


of the report, and 10 voted against. Only 17 Scottish Members of Parliament voted for it, and 42 voted against. The report exclusively affected Scottish interests—specifically Glasgow interests—yet it was approved by a majority of 45, thanks to the intervention of 203 Tory Members—whose informed interest in Scottish local affairs is well known.
Such action can serve only to undermine the principle of democracy. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who has no mandate in Scotland, is abusing this Parliament to suppress democratic local government in Scotland. That is the sort of irresponsible action that makes it more necessary than ever to establish a democratically accountable and evolved Scottish Assembly to deal with Scottish affairs.

Sir Alex Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join it.

Mr. Home Robertson: So do I.
The Secretary of State keeps telling us that the new poll tax will be such a masterpiece of accountability that there will never again be cause for central Government interference in local affairs. Indeed, such is his confidence that he is doing away with the somewhat inappropriately named guidelines that have been built into the system.
We shall have an opportunity later to consider the comments of the Tory Reform Group, which certainly rejects the belief that accountability will be achieved by this legislation. If the Minister really believes that the poll tax will provide such an effective check on the affairs of local government in Scotland, why has he left the clawback machinery in the Bill? Indeed, why has he taken the opportunity to make that machinery even easier to operate?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done that in three ways. First, he has removed the right of the targeted local authorities to make their side of the argument known to the hon. Members who will vote on their budgets. Instead, he can take the liberty of summarising local council's representations in his terms. Secondly, in fixing a new level of poll tax for an authority, he can take into account all aspects of that council's finances, rather than simply that expenditure that is alleged to be excessive and unreasonable. Thirdly, the charade of comparing the target authority with other councils will become even more farcical because the Secretary of State is now to relieve himself of the statutory obligation to make the comparison with authorities that are "closely comparable" or as closely comparable as possible with the authority concerned. The important words "closely comparable", which appeared in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981, are now to be removed.
The Government are completely indifferent to public opinion in Scotland. They are dismantling our economy and devaluing our democratic institutions. Even the so-called Tory moderates have a remarkably cavalier attitude towards Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] They are scuttling at a great rate just now, but there is still the marvellous organisation called the Tory Reform Group, which is to publish an interesting document that comprehensively rubbishes the idea of a poll tax. The concluding paragraph states:
In an ideal world Ministers would have canvassed other ideas more comprehensively and studied first the results of the new system being introduced in Scotland.

That means, before introducing a poll tax in England and Wales. There we have it: Scotland is being used as a guinea pig for this disgraceful experiment. The introduction of the tax would be bad enough, but the continuation of the clawback mechanism would be intolerable.
I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment and to remove this abhorrent provision from the Bill

Mr. Henderson: With characteristic candour, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) made it clear that the phrase "excessive and unreasonable", which is critical to the whole exercise, first appeared in legislation enacted by the Labour party and, I may say, voted for by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Dick Douglas: It appeared in 1929.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman used the word "first". The phrase first appeared in the 1929 Act.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us that the first use of the phrase was in 1929. But that does not mean that we can get away from the fact that it was used again in the 1966 Act, which was introduced by the Labour party and supported by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, who now seeks to distance himself from it.
The concept has been important in local government as a reserve power for the Secretary of State.
It is interesting that during the speech of the hon. Member for East Lothian the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) decided to leave the Chamber. We all understand why he did more to cut local government expenditure by diktat from the Scottish Office than any other right hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman cut the staff of local government by 6,000 in one year, so it is not surprising that he should have left the Chamber when the hon. Member for East Lothian was suggesting that if the Labour party were in office it would allow all local authorities to spend as much as they liked at any time. The Labour party is out of office, and will remain out of office for a long time because of the double standard enunciated by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman talked about mandate, and I take it that he would apply the same principle to Fife regional council. There is not one Labour councillor in north-east Fife. Should Fife regional council never do anything in north-east Fife that is not approved of by the councillors from north-east Fife? That is the logic—if logic there is—in the hon. Gentleman's comments on mandate, and I hope that he will realise how foolish his argument is. He should not forget that one in six Labour candidates in Scotland lost their deposits at the last election. In my constituency the Labour candidate polled less than half the number of votes polled by the most disappointed Conservative candidate in the area of Glasgow with the strongest Labour support. When Labour Members talk about mandates in Scotland, they should remember that there is gy little of the geography of Scotland where their writ would run.

Mr. Maclennan: The two old political parties rival each other in their commitment to the centralisation of Government. It is hard to pick and choose between the


arguments that have been deployed by both Conservative and Labour speakers in this debate. Both parties would seek to intervene in the affairs of local government when it suited their political book to do so.
When I supported the 1966 Act 20 years ago, it never occurred to me that the power written into that Act could be so abused as it has been by the right hon. and hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson). I do not believe that it was abused, to be fair to the Labour party to which I once was proud to belong.
6.30 pm
The reality is that all governments of whatever hue engage in the business of cutting local authority power, imposing their views on people, and erecting a constitutionally obnoxious principle, despite the fact that Parliament has empowered local authorities to carry out the services that it has specified, and has made arrangements for the democratic election of their members. The judgment of local electors must be supplanted by the judgment of the Government.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take up the time of the House, I shall give way.

Mr. McLoughlin: Is it alliance policy to give local government a blank cheque to allow it to raise the rate to any level and to take money from old people without any parliamentary responsibility? That is the impression that the hon. Gentleman gave by saying that the Government should not interfere in local government. It would be dangerous if the hon. Gentleman were to give local government a blank cheque. We have seen what local authorities will do.

Mr. Maclennan: It is the purpose of the alliance to seek to increase local accountability. Throughout the debate the Minister has alleged that that is the purpose of the Bill I am trying to point out that far from achieving that end, by reducing the amount of money available to local authorities by the introduction of the poll tax, which reduces the amount of money available to local government to a mere 13 per cent., the Minister will massively reduce local accountability. By increasing the proportion of grants that local authorities have as a result of the measure and their reliance upon grant, the Minister is taking away local accountability. That is a reversal of proper priorities. The consequence cannot be undone save by moving towards the introduction of a more broadly based, genuinely local tax. That is why the alliance party supports local income tax. Of course we recognise that there will be a need for a grant element to equalise resources; otherwise the system would be unfair.
Although I have some sympathy for the Minister and for the move, the difficulty is that the Bill will reduce finance at the hands of local authorities to such a small proportion of total expenditure that, by the gearing effect, any change in the level of service provisions will require a substantial increase in the tax rate. The Minister has constantly argued that, by a marginal increase or reduction, a local authority will be more responsive to public opinion. We shall have to wait and see whether that is so.
It is quite clear that local authorities will have little control over their own priorities and that real accountability is not about expenditure at the margin. Real local government is about policies, major issues and the provision of important services. It is not about adjustments at the margin, and that is what the Bill will achieve. It will destroy accountability, and that is one of the reasons of principle why we oppose it.
The amendment seeks to make sure that local accountability is not only damaged by a direct reduction in the amount of tax available to a local authority but is further eroded by an additional provision that enables the Secretary of State to intervene at his discretion to axe expenditure if he so chooses. It is a belt-and-braces provision that throws considerable doubt upon the Secretary of State's assertion that he believes that the introduction of the tax will increase local accountability. The truth is that he thinks that some local authorities will be prepared to accept the ratchet effect and accepts the fact that a local authority may wish to increase spending to, say, 10 per cent. above average and will need a tax rate of three times that amount to achieve it. It is perfectly possible that there are such local authorities, but it will be iniquitous if, in the circumstances, the Secretary of State seeks to substitute his judgment for the judgment of a local authority. That kind of action erodes local accountability and brings local authorities into disrepute.
If the Secretary of State is genuinely concerned to bring about a responsible attitude to spending and to curb extremism, he would long ago have thrown his full weight behind the growing movement towards electoral reform. That would, at a stroke, end extremism. That is beyond the scope of the amendment. All I can do is to commend the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and express the hope that he does not push too hard the idea that such interventions as were encompassed in the 1966 Act are acceptable. There is a balancing power to enable central Government to intervene to require local authorities to do certain things. It should be a matter for their discretion, under the arrangements that Parliament has set down. It is an important amendment that merits careful scrutiny and should be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) started his speech by referring to issues to which the Labour party and the Government are committed. It became clear that all that he is committed to is the continuing production of hot air. When asked a simple question by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin)—[AN HON. MEMBER : "Where is her?"] My hon. Friend has been called out to see a constituent.
When asked by my hon. Friend what the SDP's position was on whether central Government should have a reserve power in relation to local authority expenditure, the hon. Gentleman ducked. He referred to the fact that the alliance is sometimes in favour of local income tax and that there would have to be a central Government grant.

Mr. Maclennan: I answered the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) at some length. Perhaps I did not go to the point as quickly or as clearly as I should have done. If that is the case, let me now make it clear that my hon. Friends and I do not believe that such a power is necessary.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has made the matter absolutely clear. Let people, not only in Scotland but south of the border, be absolutely clear that the Social Democrats do not believe that central Government should have any reserve powers in relation to local authority expenditure, no matter how unreasonable, excessive or irresponsible. That is a principle, but it is not one with which most people would agree.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I should like to know whether my hon. Friend is as puzzled as I am. We are not hearing about the position that was taken by Liberal councillors in Liverpool who were rescued from the antics of the Labour party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) should not be tempted to stray away from the amendment.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) for his intervention. Liverpool, of course, is south of the border, and we are talking about Scotland. It is not unusual for the Social Democratic and Liberal parties to have different views.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) became almost hysterical at times in what has been generally a well considered and moderate debate. However, he advanced the only good argument that I have heard in favour of a Scottish Assembly—his personal commitment to attend such an Assembly instead of this place.
The hon. Member for Lothian missed one of the essential features of schedule 3. It is not proposed that under the community charge central Government would have the same powers as now exist over local authority expenditure. The major power over local authority expenditure in Scotland is the system of guidelines and penalties, but that system will not be necessary after 1 April 1989. I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted the need for some reserve powers in respect of local authority expenditure. At least, that is what I understood him to say. In Committee, he said :
There may be circumstances in which there is a need for the Government to take steps to restrict local Government expenditure."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee; 17 February 1987, c. 1198.]
It is surprising, therefore, that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) should have made several broadcasts in Scotland clearly stating that the next Labour Government will sweep away all controls on local government expenditure. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is not in his place. I hope that he will be able to act as mediator to establish precisely what Labour party policy in Scotland is. Either it is in favour of a reserve power or it is not. The Opposition's two leading spokesmen during the passage of the Bill through the House are taking entirely different positions on a central issue.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend may have explained why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is out of the Chamber at the same time as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).

Mr. Stewart: Indeed. They may be meeting to try to establish the Opposition's policy.
Under any system—a community charge, the present
rating system or a rating system as amended—central Government must have ultimate responsibility for the

control of public expenditure. That will be so under any system, but I do not believe that the intention behind schedule 3 is to use the powers within it to the same extent as the present powers. It is clear that the accountability argument would come into force. The policy of succesive Governments has been to maintain a reserve power to take action in exceptional circumstances, and it is sensible that that position should be maintained.

Mr. Dick Douglas: This has been an interesting debate, and I wish to put only a few questions to the Minister about schedule 3. I accept that in terms of fiscal management there is an argument for some form of Government control over the expenditure of subordinate authorities within a unitary state.
I should tell the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that I was somewhat intrigued by a remark made by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) during a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. We were discussing the government of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman suggested—I thought he did so with some merit—that one of the ways of reassuring the public that a Scottish Assembly with tax-raising powers, which is what we desire, would not "abuse" those powers, would be to make it clear to the Assembly that there could be no public sector borrowing requirement. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted that provision .to be placed in legislation or to introduce it by other means. I accept that that would be a means of introducing a form of fiscal discipline.
Nations have a fiscal discipline imposed upon them in the international arena—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Douglas: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes to talk about the International Monetary Fund, I wish only to say that that reflects the fear of pain and the hope of gain that is to be found in the international arena. The Labour Government of 1966 introduced reserve powers, and my recollection is that they were never used.
The first concept that we are considering is the production of a report. It seems that the Secretary of State will receive a report
proposing a reduction in the amount of personal community charge determined by the authority".
We are told now that there will be criteria for the report, and these will be extremely interesting. Who within the Secretary of State's office will prepare the report? Which civil servants will undertake this task? I suggest that it will be an onerous job. We are told in paragraph 1(3)(a) that
the Secretary of State…shall have regard to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area of the authority".

Mr. Ancram: The provisions in schedule 3, subject to one or two minor variations, are identical to those which now exist for selective action to be taken in respect of rates. That procedure has been examined on a number of occasions in the House. The problems that the hon. Gentleman seems to be envisaging have not emerged.

Mr. Douglas: In this instance it is proposed that a report will be produced. We are being asked to have regard to general economic conditions. Paragraph 1(3)(c) (iii) refers
to such other financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria as he"—


the Secretary of State—
considers appropriate; and (d) may leave out of account such categories of estimates expenses as he thinks fit.
If anywhere in Scotland any body of reasonably objective opinion started to produce a report on any local authority in Scotland, it would provide that, on the basis of any revenue that was to be raised, it could not be expected to be constrained by considerations relating to "general economic conditions". I shall refer to my constituency as an example. I became the Member for Dunfermline, West in 1979, when the Tories came into power. I can tell the House that there are 18-year-olds who were unemployed, and still are, because of the "general economic conditions". We have seen the decimation of the mining industry, which was the result of "general economic conditions". My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and I saw the Prime Minister, the Head of the House. It was pleasant meeting her and we had a nice wee cup of tea. What did we get out of our meeting with the the right hon. Lady? We were told that the Scottish Development Association has to have regard to "general economic conditions". I am still waiting for the report that I asked for in November 1986.
If the Minister were objectively to draw up a report and were to consult any body of opinion within the Scottish Office or anywhere else, I submit that, even to Members such as the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), having regard to "general economic conditions" in Scotland, he could not say that local authorities were spending too little.
The thrust of the argument is that the Secretary of State will ignore economic conditions and the strains on local authorities. Effectively, he is saying that if a local authority exceeds its estimates and revenue-raising powers, the Government will intervene. That undermines all the arguments about accountability, and that is the thrust of the Bill. The lie is in the Government's mouth. Do they believe that this is a measure of accountability?
I accept that there must be certain forms of constraint if overall fiscal management is to be achieved—I am an unreformed Keynesian—but the Government do not accept that. The Government argue that the market will know best and they follow monetary policies. If we judge the Government's argument at face value, they do not require this provision. There may be some room for constraint, but it is not embodied in the schedule that we are being asked to support.

Mr. Ancram: It may help the House if I briefly cover the Government amendments. I do not believe that we need to linger over them. The only two amendments of significance are amendments Nos. 139 and 140. They are exactly the same as amendments tabled by Labour Members in Committee. They remove four subparagraphs which simply translate into community charge terms present legislation concerning rate reductions. The sub-paragraphs were intended to enable the necessary changes to be made to the various procedures in the Bill concerning the community charge so as to implement community charge reductions. At the time, concern was expressed at the constitutional principles involved and I undertook to reconsider whether the amendments were absolutely necessary. I am now satisfied that the Bill as it

stands can accommodate community charge redeterminations without further amendment. Therefore, the four subparagraphs are no longer needed.
Amendment No. 141 corrects an error in the wording of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 are intended to require authorities with a redetermined community charge to repay any sum paid to them in response to a liability to pay the original charge. The repayment is subject to procedures that may be prescribed by the Secretary of State. I hope that the amendments will find favour with the House, especially as the main amendments reflect the line taken by the Opposition in Committee.
I believe that we have had an interesting debate. From the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) we have learnt that a future alliance Government would exert no form of control whatever on local authority expenditure. Whatever the level of expenditure undertaken by a local authority, there would be no form of control. It is also significant that, during the course of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the proportion of rate support grant, the central taxpayers' contribution, should be maintained against expenditure. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has given us a picture not only of expenditure going sky high if so desired by authorities, but also—similar to a blank cheque—the central taxpayer will automatically have to put more money into the central grant pot to keep the proportion of grant against expenditure the same.

Mr. Maclennan: I am perfectly happy to stand by what I have said, but the Minister has misrepresented what I said about grant. I made it clear that grants should not remain constant as a proportion of expenditure, but should be related to resources. If we move to a system of local income tax, that will reduce the amount of grant. Instead of money being paid as income tax to the Exchequer and then back to local authorities, it will go straight to the local authorities.

Mr. Ancram: We still have to hear from the hon. Gentleman the details of such a local income tax scheme.
I understood that the hon. Gentleman's remarks about controls did not merely apply to local income tax, but represented a general alliance principle. The hon. Gentleman also raised a previous argument when he referred to the 13 per cent. of expenditure from domestic tax. He asked how there could be accountability when we propose to destroy present accountability. Before the hon. Gentleman makes such statements, he should wait and see precisely what will be destroyed in terms of present local accountability.
Eventually, we shall remove local businesses from the local government tax-raising system. What accountability do such businesses possess? Local businesses have no vote and cannot influence the spending decisions of local authorities. However, the hon. Gentleman has argued that by removing them from this Bill accountability has somehow been lessened. If the hon. Gentleman examined the situation more carefully he would discover that the present lack of accountability lies with those who pay domestic local taxes. Of the total electorate in Scotland, only 39 per cent. pay rates. This Bill will mean that the vast bulk of those who vote in Scotland will pay some contribution towards the spending decisions of their councils. The scheme that we are proposing is far more democratic than any system proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
The new arrangements proposed in the Bill, as discussed in Committee, will improve the accountability of local authorities by widening the net of local taxpayers and hence the degree of oversight exercised by the electorate. The increased pressure for sensible budgeting allows us to abandon the system of grant penalties and tighter guidelines that presently exist. I hope that all hon. Members welcome that, because, although such controls were necessary, they were not something that any of us wished to see operating in an ideal world. We need to be sure that there is adequate pressure to keep local authority spending within reasonable bounds, but we must also ensure that local taxpayers are protected against the risk of unreasonable behaviour by individual authorities.
We have felt able to get rid of the general rate-capping measures that were adopted in legislation two years ago because we believe that they will not be necessary under the new system. At the same time, we believe that there must be some last resort power to enable the Secretary of State to propose a reduction of community charges in cases where an irresponsible authority decides to undertake expenditure in any particular financial year that is "excessive and unreasonable". Effectively, the clauses under discussion will achieve that. We are translating into community charge terms the present powers to effect a reduction in an authority's rate contained in section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966.
Opposition Members have made it clear that they oppose the provisions, but I do not believe that individual local taxpayers will agree, especially those who have been subjected in the past to the consequences of excessive and unreasonable expenditure in various areas of Scotland. It will interest hon. Members to know that one of the points made to me in recent questions about the community charge is that there is a general fear that, because there will he no controls, local taxpayers will be left at the mercy of irresponsible councils especially in the first year of a four-year term. I have been able to say that the Government have recognised that possibility, however remote, and as a responsible Government we believe that a last resort power should be returned.
The provisions in schedule 3 largely mirror the existing provisions for proposing a reduction in rates. First, the test that has to be applied is whether the authority's total estimated expenses are "excessive and unreasonable". That is a strict test and precisely mirrors the provisions in the present legislation. Of course, were the Secretary of State to exceed those criteria he would be subject to a judicial challenge. Secondly, the considerations that the Secretary of State either has to or may have regard to, as set out in paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (3), are again the same as apply at the moment to proposed rate reductions. Thirdly, the procedures are virtually the same as at present. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) raised a number of points that were altered in Committee and I repeat that they are only cosmetic changes of detail. They do not alter the way in which the provisions will operate. We went into the full details of the provision in Committee. There will always be a need for a full report to Parliament, and in due course, the need for parliamentary approval.
The basis for this schedule is that any Government must make sure that they provide against circumstances, however unlikely those circumstances may be. We believe that a reserve power is required. One of the most interesting things to come out of the debate was the

remark of the hon. Member for East Lothian, speaking for the official Opposition, when challenged as to why the 1966 Act had contained these powers. He has said that he believes that there is a "need" for such residual powers. That was the position that he took today and it is the position that we take in the Bill. On that endorsement from him, I am confident that my hon. Friends will reject the amendments.

7 pm

Mr. Home Robertson: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The trouble with the so-called residual powers that the Minister keeps talking about is that the Government have used them not as residual powers but far more liberally. I am fed up with hearing the Minister going on about irresponsible local government, when we all know that it is irresponsible and unrepresentative central Government who have been forcing up rates and cutting local authority services in Scotland. The Minister says that this new tax is all about accountability, but he cannot have much confidence in it or he would not leave schedule 3 in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was getting himself into a bit of a lather when I was explaining the background to the powers in the 1966 Act, for which he voted. It was introduced under a Labour Government and it re-enacted powers that had been built into local authority legislation for a long time before. The residual powers were intended to be used only in the most exceptional circumstances, but the Government have been deploying them with monotonous regularity year after year when they are not justified. The Minister knows that he has no mandate to exercise such powers in Scotland.
There was no case for this central interference under the old system, and we know from bitter experience that these powers have been abused. There is even less justification for such powers with a poll tax, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to support amendment No. 170.

Question put, That the amendment be made :—

The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 205.

Division No. 110]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joe
Craigen, J. M.


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dalyell, Tam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Donald


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Dormand, Jack


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Eadie, Alex


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Canavan, Dennis
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fisher, Mark


Clay, Robert
Flannery, Martin


Clelland, David Gordon
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Forrester, John


Coleman, Donald
Foster, Derek






Foulkes, George
O'Neill, Martin


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Park, George


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pavitt, Laurie


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Pendry, Tom


Hardy, Peter
Pike, Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Raynsford, Nick


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Geraint
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Janner, Hon Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheerman, Barry


Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lamond, James
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ronald
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Livsey, Richard
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Loyden, Edward
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Tinn, James


Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


McNamara, Kevin
Wallace, James


McTaggart, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Weetch, Ken


Martin, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Maxton, John
White, James


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. John McWilliam.


O'Brien, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Alexander, Richard
Butcher, John


Amess, David
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cash, William


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Churchill, W. S.


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Blackburn, John
Conway, Derek


Body, Sir Richard
Coombs, Simon


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Bottomley, Peter
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cranborne, Viscount


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Crouch, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dutwich)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Durant, Tony


Browne, John
Dykes, Hugh


Bruinvels, Peter
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Buck, Sir Antony
Eggar, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Fairbairn, Nicholas





Fallon, Michael
Norris, Steven


Favell, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Osborn, Sir John


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Franks, Cecil
Pollock, Alexander


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Portillo, Michael


Gale, Roger
Powell, William (Corby)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Powley, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Price, Sir David


Gorst, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Grant, Sir Anthony
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Gregory, Conal
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Grylls, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hayward, Robert
Rost, Peter


Heddle, John
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Henderson, Barry
Ryder, Richard


Hickmet, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Hunter, Andrew
Shersby, Michael


Jackson, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Speed, Keith


Lang, Ian
Spencer, Derek


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Steen, Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stokes, John


Lord, Michael
Sumberg, David


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Terlezki, Stefan


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich'N)


Maclean, David John
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thornton, Malcolm


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Thurnham, Peter


Madel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Major, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Malone, Gerald
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Marland, Paul
Walden, George


Marlow, Antony
Waller, Gary


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mather, Sir Carol
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wheeler, John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Whitfield, John


Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Monro, Sir Hector
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Moore, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Wolfson, Mark


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wood, Timothy


Moynihan, Hon C.
Yeo, Tim


Murphy, Christopher



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Francis Maude and


Neubert, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown.


Nicholls, Patrick

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3

REDUCTION OF COMMUNITY CHARGES

Amendments made; No. 139, in page 38, line 8, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
No. 140, in page 38, line 43, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
No. 141, in page 39, line 10, leave out 'provision' and insert 'procedure'.
No. 142, in page 39, line 12, leave out from 'was' to 'their' and insert 'liable while'.
No. 143, in page 39, line 13, after 'At' insert
'or for which he would have been liable had it so remained'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Orders of the Day — Clause 25

REPLACEMENT OF RATE SUPPORT GRANTS BY REVENUE SUPPORT GRANTS

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 175, in page 20, line 11, at end insert—
'(3) The level of any rate support grant or revenue support grant payable to any local authority for any financial year shall be not less than 70 per cent. of the authority's eligible expenditure for that financial year.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this is will be convenient to consider amendment No. 181, in schedule 4, page 40, line 45, at end insert—
'(5) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (4) above, the Secretary of State shall not reduce any amount produced under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) above on account of revenue received by a local authority from the non-domestic rate levied on oil or petro-chemical installations'.

Mr. Canavan: The Government are always complaining about rates increases, and no doubt many people in some areas in Scotland have suffered big rates increases in recent years. However, the Government have tried to play political games by pinning the blame entirely on local authorities in the hope of discrediting those local authorities, especially Labour-controlled authorities, which are fighting desperately to maintain and improve services that they were elected to provide.
The truth of the matter is that the real blame for big rates increases in recent years lies fairly and squarely at the Government's door. The Government have cut their share of support by way of rate support grant. I fear that under this Bill, once the rate support grant system is changed to revenue support grant, that trend will continue. My amendment is intended to stop that trend and to restore a realistic level of minimum rate support grant or revenue support grant, as the case may be, if and when this terrible Bill is implemented.
It is interesting to consider the trend in recent years of the Government's percentage of rate support grant in terms of a percentage of reckonable expenditure. There was a time when the rate support grant in Scotland was as high as 75 per cent. That was way back in 1975–76—the golden days of a Labour Government, some people might say. However, there were special circumstances then because of local government reorganisation. It is still interesting that, when the previous Labour Government left office, rate support grant was still 68·5 per cent. of reckonable expenditure. Since this Government came to power, they have cut the percentage of rate support grant

almost every year. It is now down to 55·5 per cent. In other words, from meeting two thirds of local authority expenditure, the Government are now meeting just over a half. That is a drop of 13 percentage points since the Government took office. For the coming financial year alone I calculate that there will be a loss to local authorities of about £250 million. Over the years, literally billions of pounds have been taken away from local authorities by the Government. No wonder local councillors are faced with difficult financial decisions.
There must be many councillors, and the people they represent, asking, "Where is this trend going to end? What is the Government's target?" Perhaps the Minister can answer that when he replies. Does he really want to get the ratio down to 50: 50, 40:60 or 30 : 70, or does he foresee a day when local government will have to raise all of its money for expenditure purposes? He should come clean in that respect. It would certainly help people in local government if they knew where they stood.
These statistics speak for themselves. The result of the massive cut in rate support grant over the years, particularly since this Tory Government came to power, means that many councils have no option but to levy significant rates increases or to reduce drastically the important services that they were elected to provide for the people they represent.
My amendment would at least ensure a minimum rate support grant of 70 per cent. of eligible expenditure. Once we move to the new system of revenue support grant, that basic minimum will continue. The Government may not accept my figure of 70 per cent., and I accept that the figure that they inherited from the previous Labour Government was a little smaller than that, at 68·5 per cent. But it would be of tremendous help to councillors and officials in local government—and those whom they serve—if the Government accepted the principle of a minimum. How on earth can a councillor or council official do any forward planning if he does not know what the minimum percentage of rate support grant will be? My amendment would help forward financial planning. I therefore ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Wallace: I shall speak to amendment No. 181. I want to draw attention to two problems—one which could be transferred to the new system from the present one, and another which could arise if the Government develop their proposals for non-domestic rates.
Amendment No. 181 would fetter the almost unlimited discretion that the Secretary of State would have in fixing the amount of revenue support grant payable to each local authority. Paragraph 2(4) of schedule 2 says :
The Secretary of State may, by reference to such factors as he determines, alter any amount produced
under the formula above. Amendment No. 181 would not allow him to reduce the amount of revenue support grant by reference to the amount of revenue that a local authority receives from the non-domestic rate levied on oil and petrochemical installations.
I fully admit that the amendment is based on a constituency interest. There is considerable dissatisfaction now because the client group approach which the Government have adopted, and which helps to fix the needs element of rate support grant, has not been applied fully in respect of Shetland Islands council or Orkney Islands council. The same also applies to other local councils, but I shall restrict myself to those of which I have first-hand experience.
This year, instead of receiving grant of £20·3 million, Shetland has had it restricted to £10·7 million. Orkney has received £8 million instead of £10·3 million. The shortfall in Shetland is equivalent to a 20p rate on all ratepayers, including commercial ratepayers, who were badly hit by the revaluation, and Shetland's main ratepayer, the Sullom Voe terminal. They would save a great deal if the Government paid the full amount.
The criticism goes even further. It was accepted when the client group approach was first adopted that it would be impossible to apply it fully at the outset. There was an understanding that every effort would be made to bring authorities into line and that authorities which would gain would increasingly receive the full assessed amount. That has not happened this year. The gap has not been narrowed, and if the limit on gains had been applied to Shetland it would have had a further £600,000, which would have been a further saving for ratepayers.
When we debated the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order two weeks ago, the Minister said that one of the reasons for the lack of narrowing was the high rate revenue base of the islands, principally because of the oil terminals. I do not deny that there is a high revenue base which reduces domestic and commercial rates, but the burdens imposed by the oil terminals must be borne in mind. Substantial capital expenditure has been incurred for new housing, new schools, improved roads and harbour facilities.
Moreover, the oil installations have produced higher rateable values on domestic and commercial property. The benefits of the terminals should not restrict payment of the full amount of rate support grant. The gap must be narrowed. I do not want the present considerable shortfall to continue when rate support grant is replaced by revenue support grant.
I want also to flag up the problem which would arise if the Government introduced their national pooling of the non-domestic rate. That aim was set out in the Green Paper, but it is not included in the Bill. The Minister might say that, by leaving it out here, he is to some extent acknowledging the difficulties that pooling would pose for islands councils. He is, however, postponing the day when the special considerations mentioned in the Green Paper have to be implemented.
Some 80 per cent. of the rating revenue for Shetland comes form the Sullom Voe terminal and 60 per cent. of the rating revenue in Orkney comes form the Flotta terminal. If they were lost to a national pool, that would have a devastating effect on the level of community charge in Orkney and Shetland. That is one reason why we have asked for special consideration.
The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to say what special considerations he has in mind. I know that he intends to meet representatives of the islands councils next week to discuss such issues and I am grateful for that, but it is a little late in the day as the Bill will have left the House by then.
What I have described could be a serious problem for the islands' finances, not least because they have to plan ahead and it is uncertain what arrangements will be in place after 1992 or when the Government, if they are still in office — God forbid — go ahead with a pooling arrangement.

Mr. Hugh Brown: I do not apologise for taking up a couple of minutes on this important amendment. It gives us an opportunity to discuss clause 25, albeit far too briefly.
This is the second time that the financial basis of support from the Government to local authorities has been caught by a guillotine. I believe that we spent about 15 minutes on it in Committee. I am sure that the Minister is desperate to put on the record a lot more about how it will work.
I should like to ask a couple of questions regarding additional commitments that the Government have taken on since we discussed this matter in Committee. I refer to the formula for giving relief to sports clubs. If the Minister does not think that 70 per cent. is a reasonable figure, will he say what level of support the Government are contemplating? Will it be more or less than it is now? He must hazard a guess, if not in actual amounts or in real terms, in percentage terms. Is it a long-term aim of the Government to have no central Government contribution to local authorities? I must point out to the Minister that, although a minor amount, this is an additional item of expenditure of which the Government have taken commitment.
7.30 pm
I am suspicious about what was said last night as to how the system will operate. Strathclyde regional council prepared a formula which, I hope, has been sent to the Scottish Office in which it identified a rates liability of £2·6 million for the 434 clubs in the region. Therefore, 50 per cent. relief would cost £1·3 million. However, under the formula that Strathclyde produced—I must say that it is a workable formula—if all clubs applied and the formula was applied, the formula means that there is a variation depending on the income and turnover of the club to try to take account of the problem of sports clubs that are licensed. The total relief could be £0·9 million, of which Strathclyde regional council would be liable for £0·;6 million. The rest would be a district liability.
The Government suggested that that was a considerable concession. I am sorry that not one Conservative Member was interested enough to seek clarification of it. This is the most important clause in the Bill so far as central Government support is concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has rightly drawn attention to the level of support that would be desirable. That is not a commitment by the Opposition, but it gives us the opportunity to consider clause 25.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to what was said last night. I shall not quote extensively because of the time constraint, but the Secretary of State said :
if a local authority uses its discretion it will not lose a penny of its income.
We are talking about what will happen after 1989, about the new proposal, not the interim period. The Secretary of State continued :
I can confirm that the effect of these proposals will be that any individual local authority which may lose revenue which it would otherwise have received from a sports club, but for the relief that it will provide, will receive additional rate support grant commensurate with the revenue forgone.
I presume that he means the revenue support grant, because we are still discussing 1989. Therefore, he is saying that there will be no loss. However, replying to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Secretary of State said :


The only change will he that if a good proportion of authorities were to exercise that relief, they would lose revenue from clubs, which would not result in any improvement in their grant from central Government." — [Official Report, 4 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 963–4.]
I do not know whether that is a misprint. That is the only situation that would change. Would the Minister care to clarify that? I ask him briefly and concisely to explain how the mechanism will operate. What is the amendment that will be used in the other place to enable local authorities to know precisely that, within future calculations, if they give rate relief, they will receive full compensation? I do not doubt the word of the Secretary of State or the Minister. However, I am suspicious about the whole arrangement because the Secretary of State knows—and we all know—that the Government decide how much support they will give to local authorities. They then say, "Fit that into the formula, whatever it is." If one authority gives more relief, it will either come out of the other part of the grant from that authority or it will come from some other authority.

Mr. Ancram: indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown: The Minister shakes his head. However, he does not have the confidence of the local authorities. That is like saying, "Yes, we are giving a special allocation to Glasgow"—or somewhere else—"for dampness." That does not mean a thing. It means only that the Minister hopes that Glasgow will spend or borrow that additional amount and that it will be used to tackle dampness. However, it still comes out of the same housing budget, and the same restrictions on expenditure that apply in housing will apply to local authorities, given the powers that he has.
I know that it is a little unfair to raise that point now, but I hope that the Minister will respond because, unless there is an amendment—no doubt the Government will table an amendment in the other place—in which case we may be able to debate it when the Bill comes back, there is a need to clear up exactly how the relief will be given to local authorities, and whether it will affect the level of general support that central Government will give to local authorities.

Mr. Ancram: I should like to deal first with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), to the extent that I can do so in general terms, not having received notice that he wished to raise it now. First, as a matter of fact, I should like to see say that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear last night that he wished to compensate local authorities who take decisions to relieve sports clubs for the loss of revenue that they incur in so doing. In relation to the amendments considered by the House last night, it is worth reminding the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that where mandatory relief was required I understood that there was no provision that any compensation should be made to the local authorities for that. It would have fallen instead upon their ratepayers, so there is a major distinction between the two sets of proposals that were before the House last night.
In overall terms, the Secretary of State said in an answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar):
When each year Government decide on the aggregate of rate support grant, they will take into account all the circumstances and they will have to include—

Unfortunately, the record reports an [Interruption.] at that point. From his later comments, it is clear that the hon. Gentleman was saying that that would have to include the consequences of the mechanism that he had enunciated. He continued :
This is not some new principle. It is exactly the way in which rate support grant is determined by every Government, and that is the proper way to do it. I have told the House that no authority will lose a single penny by a decision to grant relief of the kind that we have outlined."—[Official Report, 4 March 1987; Vol. 111, c. 965.]
So far as the mechanism is concerned—I do not wish to discuss it in detail—once the Bill is in operation, in 1989, there will only be the needs element through which it can be operated effectively. The non-domestic revenue will be considered and its loss in each authority, based on the authority's certification in the autumn of the number of reliefs that will be given. will be deducted from the domestic rates and compensated in terms of the needs element, so that each authority does not lose as a result of having taken those decisions and does not have to increase its community charge to meet them. That is quite simple after 1989, because then there will only be the needs element.
At present there is already an element of compensation built into the system, through the resources element, but not all authorities are in resources elements, so whether an authority has some comeback through the grants system for taking a decision to relieve sports clubs at present depends whether it is in a resource element. My right hon. and learned Friend said last night that he wanted to ensure that for 1988–89, which is the year before the provisions in the Bill come into operation, there would be as fair a system as would exist after the Bill came into operation. That requires a minor legislative change, which we intend to move in another place, to allow a similar mechanism, through the needs element, to operate before the Bill becomes operative in terms of the new revenue support grant.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a general explanation. I know that he has a suspicious mind — he is continually reminding me of that fact —but I hope that on this occasion he will see that not only have the sports clubs welcomed what was said this morning but that once the local authorities have studied it they will see that we have provided a mechanism that is fair to them as well.
I am aware of time constraints, but I should like to say a word about the proposals because in Committee I could not do so at the end of our debates. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is wholly unacceptable. First, given the present grant rate of 55·6 per cent., the amendment would imply a substantial immediate increase in the taxpayers' contribution to local services. It would be instructive to know the hon. Gentleman's views on where that money was to come from. What other services or expenditure programmes would he like to see reduced?

Mr. Canavan: rose—

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument. I did not interrupt him, although on some occasions I was sorely tempted to do so. Would the money come from increases in taxation? We already know that Labour's programme would involve


either 43 per cent. VAT or a local income tax of more than 50p in the pound. Is he suggesting that those figures are not enough and that he wishes to see taxation increased?
The hon. Gentleman went on to make the point, as he has done before, that reductions in rate support grant had somehow increased rates. Presumably the corollary is that if one holds the proportion of rate support grant steady, rates will hold steady, and if one increases the proportion of rate support grant, rates will decrease. In the four years when grant was held steady at 68·5 per cent., expenditure rose by £260 million in real terms and rates rose by 79 per cent. in cash terms or 17 per cent. in real terms. The grant proportion was being held steady, but it did not help ratepayers because the rates increased in real terms. In July 1986, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, announced an aggregate Exchequer grant for 1987–88 which maintained the percentage of grant in 1986–87. We can look at Scotland now to see whether the hon. Gentleman's argument is working and whether rates are holding steady, but if he considers the proposed rate increases, I doubt whether he can sustain that argument.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what the Government's position was on rate support grant, and the same question was asked by the hon. Member for Provan. I must tell both hon. Gentlemen that they cannot expect me at this stage to predict what is essentially a decision taken each year in the light of the needs and circumstances of the time. However, I can make this comment about this year. When we maintained the grant proportion, we made it clear that it was in recognition of the fact that at long last expenditure in 1986–87 was marginally below that in 1978–79 in volume terms and that this was the first time that that had happened since 1979. That was the reasoning behind the aggregate which we announced.
Finally, the amendment is wholly unacceptable because it would compel the Government to provide grant at a rate of 70 per cent. or, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, possibly less of an authority's actual expenditure even if that expenditure was grossly extravagant. The hon. Gentleman is effectively asking the Government to give a blank cheque to the local authority saying, "Spend what you like." The hon. Gentleman knows that he has removed the controls that we were discussing in the last set of amendments. He is saying to local authorities, "Fill in 70 per cent. of whatever you want to spend."

Mr. Canavan: The amendment refers to "eligible" expenditure.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman might like to describe what he believes to be eligible expenditure. Obviously, it is not relevant expenditure because we have been setting out guidelines for relevant expenditure and the hon. Gentleman has said that we have been holding local authorities back. His suggestions are unworkable and, once again, show the sort of view of local authority spending that many Opposition Members have.
Amendment No. 181, proposed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), deals with oil and petrochemical installations. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I cannot accept his amendment, but I can offer some reassurance on the points that I believe concern him. I shall deal only with those affected

by the Bill. For constituency reasons, he may have wanted to make other points in the debate, but in fairness I should stick to the effects of the Bill.
In the period before the establishment of a national non-domestic rate, with pooling of non-domestic rate income, we intend that for the purposes of apportioning revenue support grant on the basis of the respective needs of authorities, those needs will be assessed in the normal way, as they are at present, and non-domestic rate income will then be netted off. For an authority like Shetland or Orkney, the netting off will include the rate income from Sullom Voe or Flotta, which I think are the hon. Gentleman's main concern. The purpose of this procedure is to equalise among authorities, so that after grant all authorities will have to impose the same level of community charge for the same standard of service. That is an important principle.
However, schedule 4, paragraph 2(4) allows us to make special arrangements which we have described as safety netting—that is, the Secretary of State will be able to adjust the amount of grant arrived at under the earlier procedures, so as to avoid or to moderate any change in grant entitlement, from one year to the next. Paragraph 2(4) provides us with an adequate vehicle to avoid any odd or quirky results which otherwise might be expected to arise, particularly for the Islands councils. On present estimates we would expect all the Islands councils to benefit substantially from the safety netting carried out using paragraph 2(4). Indeed, Shetland Islands council has made submissions setting out the importance to it of safety netting.
7.45 pm
I am aware of Shetland's concern in particular about the decline of business for Sullom Voe in the 1990s and the need for a non-domestic rate at that time pitched at a level which will not discourage the oil companies from continuing Sullom Voe's operation. To that kind, I am aware that the council is aiming to pay off its oil-related debts by 1992–93 and I am aware of its concern about the possible effect of a national non-domestic rate thereafter on the oil companies' decisions for the future of Sullom Voe. Indeed, those points were raised with me when I visited the islands in the summer. There are two points to make in response to that. First, the immediate issue as perceived by Shetland Islands council is that it should be able to continue to pursue its debt-free policy between now and 1992–93. There is nothing in our proposal to prevent or inhibit that.
Secondly, our interim proposals to determine maximum annual increases in non—domestic rates are intended simply to do that. It will be open to individual authorities to charge less than the maximum, as I understand that Shetland would like to be in a position to do. I will be meeting representatives of Shetland Islands council next week, and I hope then to discuss the matter further with them. These discussions will cover not only the position in the next few years under the system of grants and non—domestic rates established by this Bill, but the long term under the national non—domestic rate. On that basis I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment.
I shall briefly outline how the revenue grant proposals are intended to work, because it is important. Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 4 effectively repeats the existing provisions but in a simplified form. The Secretary of State first


determines aggregate Exchequer grant—that is, the total grant to be paid to local authorities in support of their relevant expenditure, which is, broadly, all their expenditure except housing and water. The first call on this is for entirely specific grants. These are the grants which are paid for particular services. The biggest specific grants are for the police, housing improvement and urban aid. The rest of the AEG is then to be paid as revenue support grant. Having established the total of revenue support grant, paragraph 2 sets out how the grant to each authority is to be established.
The first step in distributing grant will be to look at the expenditure need of each authority. At present we use client group assessments of expenditure need to do this in needs element calculations. In the new system we shall take these assessments but deduct from them non-domestic rate income. The grant required to compensate for differences in expenditure need will then he calculated. For example, if Central region has an expenditure need of £445 per adult and Fife £420. Central needs £25 per adult in grant to compensate for that difference. Once differences in need have been calculated, the rest of the grant will be distributed proportionately to the adult population. To use 1986–87 figures, for example, regions might get £316 per adult; districts, which have traditionally received a lower share of rate support grant, £1 per adult; and the Islands authorities £317 per adult.
The new grant system is being introduced for two reasons. First, the rate support grant system has become too complicated and few people understand it. Having considered rate support grant orders in the House, most hon. Members will agree with that. The needs element is complicated enough, but there are also the resources and domestic elements. The subject has even developed a language of its own with such entities as actual penny rate products, standard penny rate products, and the national standard amounts. Secondly, the grants system must match the system of taxation, since one of its aims is a fair distribution of the tax burden between residents in different authorities.
The new grant system will cause fairly small changes in grant entitlement at regional level but rather larger shifts for some small districts. To ease the transition to the new system, there will be a safety net. In future, revenue support grant orders will be straightforward documents listing for each authority how much grant it will receive. The report on an order will set out how the grant figures were arrived at and local authority associations, which at present mean COSLA, will be consulted before an order is laid. Section 2.6 allows variation orders to be made changing grant distribution and, if necessary, the aggregate. In the present grant system it is necessary to make several variation orders for grant each year. I hope that such changes will be kept to a minimum in the new system and that in many years it may be possible to dispense with variation orders altogether. Certainly, the new system will give local authorities much greater certainty to their grant entitlement. I believe that that will be a major improvement on the present situation.
That is the background to the amendments that we have been discussing. I hope and trust that the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) will not press their amendments. If they do, I must ask my hon. Friends to resist them.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 88, in page 20, line 16, leave out from '26' to end of line 20.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 160. in page 20, line 24, after 'charges', insert
'(including payments of standard community charge contributions under section 12 and collective community charge contributions under section 13 of this Act).'.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify and place beyond doubt the coverage of the proposed community rebate scheme. It has always been the Government's intention that collected community charge contribution provided for in clause. 13 should be able to be included within the provisions of the community charge rebate scheme. Our advice when the Bill was being drafted was that reference to rebates being in respect of payments made by way of community charges was sufficient to secure this. Doubt has now been cast, however, on whether the words "by way of" are sufficiently clear. The purpose of this amendment is to remove that doubt. I trust that the House will approve the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maxton: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in page 20, line 25, at end insert
'such regulations shall ensure that 100 per cent. rebates may be granted where the level of income of a person warrants it.'.
The whole rebate scheme in this Bill has aroused concern ever since the publication of the Green Paper and then of the Bill, with no White Paper in between, which would have been normal in these circumstances. Concern has been expressed about the lack of detail in the Bill on the rebate scheme. If what the Minister has said so far in Committee and elsewhere is right, we are certain that he intends to operate the Social Security Act that will be coming into force in April 1988. In other words, every person who is entitled to pay the community charge will pay 20 per cent. of it. Whatever their income or means, however poor they are, if they are over the age of 18 they will have to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge.
The Minister's initial reaction to objections to that tended to be, "It is in the Social Security Act and there is not much I can do about it." It was pointed out to him that constitutionally in this Parliament, as in any previous piece of legislation, we are entitled to put in this Bill a 100 per cent. rebate scheme. Is he prepared to say that every single person should pay 20 per cent. of the charge? The Minister and the Government are saying that widows and single parents, about whom the Government have expressed great concern, are going to be better off as a result of having to pay £40 or £50 per year. Every unemployed youth over the age of 18 will have to pay the charge. The poorest in our land will be asked to pay on average £1 a week for their so—called local services. That is what the Government are about. We object to the basic immorality of asking the very poorest in the land to pay.
Of course, £1 a week is not a large sum for any of us in this House. However, there is something immoral in hon. Members, particularly on the Government side, voting to reduce their own tax burden in order to put it on to widows, old-age pensioners and the unemployed. That is what the Government are doing in this Bill.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is sloganising.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister says I am sloganising. I will give him one more slogan. I will tell him what may very well happen under this measure. I have said before, and


I say again, that if this Bill ever comes into force, elderly pensioners living alone in council flats will have a difficult choice to make in the middle of a hard winter. Their choice will be between paying their electricity bill to heat their homes and keep themselves alive or paying the community charge. If they make the wrong choice, they die. If they choose not to pay the community charge, the sheriff's officer will go after them and take their television set in payment.
I have heard the descriptions "emotional" and "over the top" from the Minister, but never once has he denied that that may happen as a result of what he is doing. He cannot argue against it, because he knows it could happen.
We are talking not only of the immorality but of the practicality of the Bill.
The famous Tory Reform Group document that came out at 1 o'clock in the morning, referring to accountability, makes the point :
The Government's final fall—back position is that all low-income electors may be"—
or "shall be", which is what it ought to be—
required to pay 20 per cent. of their local community charge. This idea will not last long in practice. The administrative cost of collecting such sums will often outweigh the income and the social security system (through housing benefit) will be adjusted by a future Government to meet the 20 per cent. charge in full for low—income groups. In these circumstances, the 20 per cent. charge will be effectively redundant.
The Tory Reform Group in England does not believe that the 20 per cent. charge will stick, because it is such a small sum of money. The cost of collecting the charge and
chasing people to get it will be such that the Government will appreciate very quickly that it should be scrapped altogether. Once the 20 per cent. charge is abolished and a full 100 per cent. rebate system is instituted, the Government's accountability argument will go out the window. That is why the Government are so miserly and mean in insisting on the very poorest in our society having to pay that sum of money. I ask the Minister to support my amendment and to give the poor of Scotland at least the chance of a 100 per cent. rebate.

Mr. Donald Stewart: This amendment goes to the very crux of the Bill. People of very limited means will be obliged to pay out 20 per cent. of their income. That will not matter very much to most people but, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has just said, to many others it will mean the difference between a reasonable existence and doing without the very essentials of existence. The Government have made great play in the past about the means test. This will not even be subject to a means test. Everybody, however small their income, will be obliged to pay 20 per cent. of their income towards this new poll tax.
8 pm
In 1979, in a document that the Conservatives issued in Scotland, they said :
In the future programme of priorities we will ease the rates burden, first by transferring to central Government the cost of teachers' salaries"—
no doubt that is due in the next century—
…by abolishing domestic rates and replacing them by taxes related to people's ability to pay.
This charge goes against that, and most hon. Members would regard that policy statement as fundamental whether or not they agree with this poll tax or community charge.
This charge will fall heavily on Scottish crofters. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) put down a marker in Committee about that. Since 1956 crofters have enjoyed rate benefits because of their remote location, higher costs of living and lack of amenities. Their circumstances have not changed in any way.
The National Farmers Union of Scotland, which is not often regarded as a friend of the crofters, has come out in their support. It says :
£1·7 million extra will be taken from Scotland's crofting households.
My constituency has the benefit of the integrated development programme but it will all have gone for nothing because of this swingeing poll tax. All the input from the Common Market will disappear because of this charge. It negates entirely the benefits of the community programme in the Western Isles. Mrs. Betty MacDonald, the convenor of the NFU's Scottish commission, said :
For a household of two I will pay over three times the amount payable under the existing system.
The Government must face that. Scotland's crofters do not have the resources to pay these charges and the Crofters Holdings Act 1886 will have been passed for nothing. The social effects will be damaging in parts of the islands and on the mainland of Scotland where, because of derating in the past, crofters have a reasonable cost of living. They will come to the towns, and the rural areas will be totally depopulated. For that reason, quite apart from the question of morality and justice, this amendment should be accepted by the Government and backed by the House.

Mr. Hugh Brown: We had a long debate in Committee, so I shall not rehearse all the arguments that I deployed then to draw attention to how this measure will affect a constituency like mine with a high proportion of people receiving social security benefits. I have had two letters containing representations. One is from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the other is from the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped. I assume that the Minister has received similar letters. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations is probably one of the most influential and well-respected bodies in Scotland. Speaking on behalf of 11 other voluntary bodies, it says :
The bill, in its present form, will have serious effects upon the clients and members of voluntary bodies.
The Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped says:
So mentally handicapped people would presumably be liable for about £50, which would have to come out of their Social Security benefits. While there may be some adjustment of benefits nationally, the Community Charge would be fixed locally and the two might well be incompatible. Many families will feel that they are being taxed for having a mentally handicapped dependant.
It is appalling that, under the guise of some kind of accountability, the Government are being miserly and putting the boot into the poorest and most handicapped people in our society by way of a 20 per cent. charge. I have written to both organisations, I hope diplomatically, and told them that in one case Her Majesty the Queen Mother is the patron and the president is Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The patron of the other organisation is Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent and the vice-president is the Duchess of Buccleuch and Queensberry. When talking about noble families I am never very sure whether I am talking about the Lothian or the Hamilton family or whether they are just related. I hope that my little


effort in drawing attention to the power that still remains in the House of Lords to do something for the poor will be noted by the Minister. It is ironic that in this society we have to hope that the Lords can do something that the Government have failed to do.

Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is right when he says that this matter has been debated at length—and it is right that it should have been. The proposals by the Government to impose 20 per cent. of the community charge on those who are destitute is an abomination and ought never to have been the subject of legislation. It is an appalling commentary upon the attitude of the Government to the poor, who grow in number the longer this Government remain in office, that there is no provision in the Bill to help these people avoid an appalling impasse.
The Government have sought to justify the poll tax by saying that it is a charge for services, but it will not fall upon people according to the extent to which they use services. The Government know that local government services are most used by the elderly and by young people with families. For the most part it is the single unemployed who will have to bear this appalling burden. They are the very people in Scotland who receive least assistance from local authorities. The alliance parties were firm and clear from the beginning that local taxation ought to be based upon ability to pay. The Government have rejected that principle and we regard their attitude to the poll tax as retrograde, medieval and wholly inappropriate in a civilised society. I support the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: In Committee questions were asked about whether there would he a rebate scheme and a number of hon. Members did not think that there would be. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) tabled an amendment but did not move it so we had better leave that matter aside.
I should like to quote from a letter written by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 March to Councillor Layden, the chairman of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. I hope that the letter will put this matter beyond doubt. It says:
The Government's intention is that there should be community charge rebates throughout Great Britain, though each person liable would be required to make some community charge payment; the Social Security White Paper suggested that each household make at least a 20 per cent. contribution towards domestic rates. You will have seen that Clause 26 of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill provides the power to pay such rebates in Scotland. We envisage a similar power when the legislation to introduce the community charge in England and Wales is put before Parliament.
If the hon. Member for Cathcart does not wish to rely on my statements, perhaps he will rely on that one.
The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) spoke about the amendment put forward in Committee by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). Those who know the area that the right hon. Member for Western Isles represents are not unanimous in thinking that the amendment put forward by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was correct. A certain Mr. Brian Wilson, who I believe is still a member of the Labour party and a candidate, on 27 February, wrote in the West Highland Free Press, a journal which I suspect the right hon. Gentleman sometimes reads :
The arguments raised against the solution, …"—

that is, the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland—
…notably by Mr. Hugh Brown, are formidable. It simply is not on to introduce in 1987 a new scheme which gives the well-paid schoolteacher with crofting status a 25 per cent. tax rebate while the pensioner next door in a non-croft house is hit for the full whack.
If the right hon. Member for Western Isles is not prepared to listen to the arguments that. I put forward in Committee, he might at least listen to the arguments of Mr. Brian Wilson.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I agree that probably only 1 per cent. of crofters are schoolmasters who have inherited their croft or bought one. But that does not apply to 99 per cent. of the crofted area, either in the islands or on the mainland.

Mr. Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the number of owner—occupier crofters, he will find that the percentage of them who have other jobs or professions is rather larger than that.
The point that is being made brings us directly to the question of rebates. The moment that we make exemptions for certain categories, we give to those who do not need help as well as to those who do. The purpose of the rebate scheme is to target help to those who need it.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister has almost made out the case for a local income tax. He says that, by trying to introduce exemptions, one cannot necessarily target those who are in need as opposed to those who are not. The reason for these exemptions is that his Bill does not allow for the fundamental principle of fairness, which any tax system must have. He almost accepted that and put forward a good case for a local income tax.

Mr. Ancram: I wish that we had time to go into the question of a local income tax. I have been longing to go into the details of a local income tax. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) told me that I should not expect him to produce any details of his scheme, and I can only suspect that that is because he realises that were he to go into the details of it he would see that it hits at those whose support he is trying to gather.
This amendment would require the rebate scheme to provide for rebates of up to 100 per cent. of the community charge levels. Here again we are dealing with an issue which has been debated at length not only in the course of the Bill but, more appropriately, by both Houses during the passage of the Bill which became the Social Security Act 1986. The proposition that all those liable for the personal community charge should be required to make some contribution towards it is already embodied in the housing benefit scheme for rates which will be introduced from 1 April 1988 under the provisions of the 1986 Act.
In view of the amount of discussion that we have already had on this point, I shall limit myself to a brief summary of the justification for our policy. There are two reasons for the proposal. The first is that the primary purpose of rates, and in due course the community charge system, is to finance the provision of local authority services. Since all ratepayers, and subsequently all community charge payers, have access to local authority services, it seems right that all should make at least some contribution to the costs. The second justification is to increase the accountability of local authorities to their ratepayers, or community charge payers, for the costs of the services that they provide.
As was clearly established during the passage of the Social Security Act 1986, there needs to be a relationship between the services that local authorities provide and the willingness of their local taxpayers to meet the cost of these services. If a significant proportion of local taxpayers bear none of the burden of meeting the costs of local services, that relationship is broken.
The provision for a minimum contribution is therefore an essential part of the improvements in accountability which the new system will bring. It will, indeed, already have been included, in principle, in the rating system before the community charge is introduced. The carryover of the principle into the community charge arrangements will reinforce the improvements in accountability that the broadening of the tax base will bring. The amendment therefore strikes at one of the main principles of our policy, and I cannot accept it.
The rebate scheme which we offer is a generous one. It takes account of high levels of gross income at the top end of the taper and it depends on income support levels at the bottom. It will give protection where it is required, while maintaining the principle of accountability.
On that basis, I ask my hon. Friends to reject the amendment.

Mr. Maxton: In the last 30 seconds before the guillotine comes down on the debate, I should like to say that the 80 per cent. rebate and the paying of 20 per cent. by every person—the mentally and physically handicapped, the elderly and the young unemployed — is the most immoral part of what is a very immoral Bill. I ask my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in voting for a 100 per cent. rebate.

Question put, that the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 196.

Division No. 111]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashton, Joe
Deakins, Eric


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dewar, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dormand, Jack


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fatchett, Derek


Boyes, Roland
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fisher, Mark


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Forrester, John


Buchan, Norman
Foster, Derek


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce


Clay, Robert
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clelland, David Gordon
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Conlan, Bernard
Hancock, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hardy, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Haynes, Frank


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Craigen, J. M.
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Tom
Coombs, Simon


Ashby, David
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Crouch, David


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Dickens, Geoffrey


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Blackburn, John
Dunn, Robert


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Durant, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Favell, Anthony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brinton, Tim
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bruinvels, Peter
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bulmer, Esmond
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Butcher, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butterfill, John
Gorst, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Greenway, Harry


Carttiss, Michael
Grylls, Michael


Cash, William
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chope, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, W. S.
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John

Holland, Stuart (vauxhall)
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Hon Greville
Redmond, Martin


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lambie, David
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lamond, James
Sheerman, Barry


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Leighton, Ronald
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Litherland, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Loyden, Edward
Snape, Peter


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


McTaggart, Robert
Straw, Jack


Madden, Max
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Tinn, James


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wareing, Robert


Meacher, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Michael


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wilson, Gordon


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Woodall, Alec


Nellist, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon



O'Brien, William
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Tony Lloyd and


Park, George
Mr. John McWilliam.


Parry, Robert

Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jackson, Robert
Rost, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


King, Rt Hon Tom
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Knowles, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Silvester, Fred


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Nicholas
Stern, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stokes, John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sumberg, David


Maclean, David John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Major, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marland, Paul
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Marlow, Antony
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Sir Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Merchant, Piers
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Walden, George


Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Monro, Sir Hector
? Waller, Gary


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Ward, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Murphy, Christopher
Watts, John


Needham, Richard
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Neubert, Michael
Whitfield, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wiggin, Jerry


Norris, Steven
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Osborn, Sir John
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wood, Timothy


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Yeo, Tim


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)



Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Pollock, Alexander
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Richard Ryder.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [11 February] and the Resolution [4 March], to put forthwith the Questions on the remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.

Schedule 5

WATER AND SEWERAGE CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 144, in page 42, line 1, after

'(a);' insert
'subject to paragraph 2A below,'.

No. 145, in page 42, line 5, at end insert—
'2A. In estimating the expenditure mentioned in paragraph 1 above which they will incur in respect of any financial year a local authority shall take into account—
(a) such additional sum as is in their opinion required—
(i) to cover expenses previously incurred,
(ii) to meet contingencies, and
(iii) to meet any expenses which may fall to be met before the moneys to be received from the sources mentioned in paragraph 1 above in respect of the next following financial year will become available; and
(b) any means by which any part of that expenditure may otherwise be met or provided for.'.

No. 146, in page 43, leave out lines 6 to 11.

No. 147, in page 43, line 22, after 'prescribed', insert 'in relation'.

No. 148, in page 43, line 37, after '(a)', insert 'subject to paragraph 15A below,'.

No. 149, in page 43, line 43, at end insert —
'15A. In estimating the expenditure mentioned in paragraph 14 above which they will incur in respect of any financial year, a local authority shall take into account—
(a) such additional sum as is in their opinion required—
(i) to cover expenses previously incurred,
(ii) to meet contingencies, and
(iii) to meet any expenses which may fall to be met before the moneys to be received from the sources mentioned in paragraph 14 above in respect of the next following financial year will become available; and
(b) any means by which any part of that expenditure may otherwise be met or provided for.'.

No. 150, in page 44, line 24, leave out
'in whose entry in the valuation roll there appears no domestic subjects note'
and insert
'in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll'.

No. 151, in page 44, line 38, leave out from 'rate' to the end of line 44.

No. 152, in page 46, line 6, leave out
'in whose entry in the valuation roll there appears no domestic subjects note'
and insert
'in respect of which there is an entry in the valuation roll'.

No. 153, in page 46, line 30, leave out from 'rate' to the end of line 36.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Clause 28

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 89, in page 21, line 10, leave out from '"domestic rates"' to end of line 11 and insert
'means rates which are leviable on lands and heritages which are domestic subjects'.

No. 90, in page 21, leave out lines 14 and 15.—[Mr.Ancram.]

Clause 29

APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 91, in page 22, line 10, leave out from 'imposition' to 'appealed' in line 11 and insert
'requirement', designation or. as the case may be, other matter'.

No. 92, in page 22, leave out line 15. — [Mr. Ancram.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 50, line 48, leave out 'the words'.—[Mr. Ancrami]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Clearly, at such a stage in the consideration of a Bill of this complexity and importance, it is difficult to conceive of anything fundamentally new that is likely to be said by Members on either side of the House. Nevertheless, I want to begin by emphasising that there are perhaps four ways in which fundamental defects in the existing system of local government finance have been identified, each of which is covered by the Bill and none of which is accommodated either by the proposals of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) or by the existing domestic rating system.
The first defect is well known, but I make no apology for repeating it. Some 750,000 adults in Scotland—21 per cent. of the total—make under the existing system, or would make under the proposals put forward by the Labour party, no contribution towards the raising of local revenue. For the purpose of this discussion I acknowledge, as I did on Second Reading, that spouses have a financial interest in the rates contributions of their husbands or wives, but even taking that into account we are still left with a substantial minority of the electorate who make no contribution. That is not because of their level of income their status in any general sense or because they are less in receipt of benefits or services from the local authority. Some may be wealthy, some may be of moderate wealth, some may be relatively poor—[Interruption.] Some will be very wealthy. Those with a private suite in the Caledonian hotel in Edinburgh will pay no rates at all whereas the impoverished person living round the corner will.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Rifkind: In a moment. I am just developing my point.
At no stage during the course of our debates have the Opposition either stopped to justify the exclusion of 21 per cent. of the adult electorate from any contribution towards a system of local authority revenue, nor have they put forward proposals which would rectify that.
Secondly, certain groups of the community, those who by any stretch of the imagination are among the lower income groups, will benefit in some cases very significantly from a system of community charge as opposed to a system of domestic rates. We have calculated, and no one has questioned this, that more than 85 per cent. of all single pensioner households will gain under a community charge, and that of these 30 per cent. would gain more than £1 a week.
We have also demonstrated that some 80 per cent. of other single adult households would gain, and that of these more than half would gain more than £1 a week. Within

that last group, more than four fifths of all one-parent families would gain, about half of them gaining more than £1 per week. No one has yet suggested, and no one could suggest with any conviction, that those people are not among the poorest members of the community. It has been demonstrated, without any evidence to the contrary, that they will benefit, in some cases significantly, from the community charge as opposed to domestic rates.
The third consideration is the question of accountability, on which there has been much comment and to which the Opposition pay lip service, but which they have not dealt with in any convincing way. Under our existing arrangements it is not just the 21 per cent. who have no possible accountability. It is probably one third of the total electorate when one includes those who receive 100 per cent. rebates under the existing arrangements. Therefore, about one third of the adult electorate can vote for any level of rates increase in the knowledge that they will not have to make one penny contribution towards its cost. That is a substantial proportion of the electorate. The same does not apply in the case of a general election or in respect of central Government because all adults, irrespective of their status and their income, pay tax to central Government.

Mr. Maxton: Value added tax.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is correct. A proportion pay income tax, but 100 per cent. pay value added tax. The hon. Gentleman should be first to be aware that as local authorities have only one source of revenue from their local electorate, anyone who does not pay that local tax is totally immune from the consequences of the decision taken by that local authority — unlike the electorate in their relationship with central Government where there is not one elector who does not find himself influenced by decisions on public expenditure by central Government, either through value added tax or through income tax or through both. That is a factor that the Opposition have not begun to answer at any stage in this debate, nor have their proposals for reform of the system in any way dealt with that fundamental point.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadeen (Mr. Dewar) who at least does not interrupt with the same boring regularity as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) — [HON. MEMBERS: "The Secretary of State is getting bored."] Yes, I am getting more and more bored by the hon. Member for Cacthcart. "Boring for Britain" should be his slogan at the next general election—he might make some impact with that.
At least the hon. Member for Garscadden understands that these are not bogus debating points but legitimate considerations. I acknowledge that, and I must assume that he is also worried about them. He must be as acutely conscious as anyone that the lack of accountability of the present system, the extent to which large minorities of the electorate make no contribution towards local rates and the extent to which pensioners and other single-parent families lose out under the existing arrangements are all defects which his own proposals will in no way bridge. That is a fundamental problem.
The fourth consideration regards the non-domestic ratepayer. Business and commerce are in the extraordinary position that under the existing arrangements they have become the milch cow of local authorities. They are perceived as bodies which can be expected to sustain any


level of rates increase. The average Labour councillor—not all of them —maintains that rates increases do not have the slightest effect on the viability of the industries or businesses concerned or on the employment that they can provide. However, the chambers of commerce and the Scottish CBI have emphasised that the rates increases which are now proposed by certain local authorities will severely damage employment and will lead to significant job losses which will harm the local economy.
There are a number of fundamental considerations. We must ask to what extent the Labour party can respond to those concerns in any way, given its opposition to the Government's proposals.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his courage and determination in taking action on rating reform has earned him great admiration in Southend-on-Sea as well as in Scotland, but is he prepared to take action on the grotesque anomaly whereby agricultural buildings are not subject to the payment of rates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will stick to what is in the Bill, which is the appropriate thing to do on Third Reading.

Mr. Rifkind: If I had residual doubts about the merits of the Bill, the approbation of the good people of Southend-on-Sea would have put my mind at rest. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will be aware, if he is interested in levying from the farmers of the United Kingdom the responsibility of paying rates for agricultural land and holdings, that the Labour Government would be the only Government liable to impose such a damaging innovation on the farming community at this difficult time for its interests.
In seeking to respond to the basic anomolies and unfairnesses which our Bill will rectify, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden has not produced any convincing alternatives. Labour Members have laboured mightily and they have produced a mouse. The extraordinary proposal of capital values as the answer to the ratepayers' dream—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair often has great difficulty on Third Readings because the pattern that is set by the Secretary of State, or whoever it may be, is inevitably followed by all other speakers. The rule is that on Third Reading of a Bill we confine ourselves to what is in the Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will do that.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I notice the enthusiasm and relief with which the Opposition heard your ruling. They, too, are clearly even more delighted that I shall be unable to comment on their proposals at this stage, and we can all understand why.
I do not wish to speak for too long because I know that many other hon. Members will wish to comment. However, I wish to comment on the other major area, because it is a point which has been central to the—

Mr. Maxton: Is it relevant to the Bill?

Mr. Rifkind: It is indeed relevant to the Bill.
The other major area which is central to the debate is the question of ability to pay. The Opposition have sought to imply on various occasions that somehow the proposals before the House will lead to unacceptable and

unreasonable hardship for the average person in Scotland. [Interruption.] We are now told that they will not lead to any problems for the average person in Scotland [Interruption.] It looks as though we are making progress at this late stage. It seems that the hon. Member for Cathcart does not wish to argue that the average person in Scotland will be worse off as a result of these proposals. I am prepared—[Interruption.] As I say, we are making considerable progress. The average income in Scotland is, we heard recently, £201 per week for persons in employment. Therefore, an average community charge payment of between £4 and £5 per week is a relatively small amount that is unlikely to produce hardship. The hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members will say, "Ah, yes, but it is not just the average person that we are talking about. We accept that he may not experience any hardship, but what about those being brought into the net for the first time? What about the young single person who does not pay rates at the moment and will pay rates in the future?" He may pay between £3, £4 or £5 if he is in employment, but if he is unemployed he is unlikely to pay the full amount.
Let us consider the position of the young, single, employed adult. We know what the situation is, because the latest figures illustrate that in 1985, which is already some two years ago. approximately 90 per cent. of youngsters between 18 and 24 who were in full-time employment earned more than £80 a week

Mr. Maxton: There are not many of them.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman simply does not know the facts. Almost 90 per cent.—88 per cent., to be exact—of all young adult males between 18 and 24 earned over £80 a week. Many are paying rates; many young adult males are ratepayers. They have to pay. Why should others with the same income make no contribution? The hon. Gentleman is silent all of a sudden. Even if those young people have had the good fortune to have no contribution to make up to now, the suggestion that a maximum payment—it is the maximum that we are talking about—of some £5 a week will be a cause of hardship is ludicrous.
The hon. Gentlman and the House as a whole are aware that, in addition to the fact that the vast majority of those who are in employment will have incomes far in excess of any level that would imply hardship in respect of such payments, there is to be a rebate scheme, which will assist not just young single adults but any whose income is below a level that would imply hardship if the full community charge were levied. That policy applies at present to domestic rates.
I believe that we have been able to demonstrate to any fair-minded person that the proposals will benefit some 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. of single pensioners and single-parent families. Our proposals will remove the anomalies to which we have drawn attention and they will not create hardship either for the average person in Scotland, which has already been conceded by the Opposition or, as I have demonstrated, for those on lower incomes.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the Secretary of State saying that nobody will be worse off? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] In that case, will he tell us who will be worse off?

Mr. Rifkind: Those who pay nothing at the moment will be worse off. That goes without saying. Whether that


is unfair is a separate issue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that those who pay nothing at the moment do not necessarily pay nothing because their income is low. It may simply be that they are not the occupier of a rateable property. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that point.
I commend the Bill to the House in the very sure knowledge that, despite more than 100 hours in Committee, two days on Report and a public debate that has gone on much longer than that, and quite apart from the outcome of the votes, it is a well-recognised fact throughout Scotland—[Interruption.]—that, due to the splendid advocacy of the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) and his colleague who is responsible for industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), the Government's case has been demonstrated to be infinitely superior to that of the Opposition.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I understand —[Interruption.] I understand the sensitivity—

Mr. Douglas: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I am not giving way.
I understand the sensitivity of Opposition Members. They have had their opportunity to demonstrate their view as to the defects of the Bill and the advantages of domestic rates. It is a widely held perception in Scotland that they have failed to do so and that the Government's case has been enormously strengthened by the parliamentary consideration of the Bill. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Dewar: There is a slightly frivolous atmosphere, which is not surprising at this point, but I cannot help spending a minute or two welcoming the authentic voice of Southend man back to our Scottish debates. The earthy populism that he brings can be useful. He has given us a useful quotation on agricultural rating, to which I may give a wider airing in Scotland in the months ahead.
When the Secretary of State is reduced to saying, "It is a well-known fact that," we know that he is on weak ground. I do not accept his analysis. I do not accept his philosophical position, although I accept that it can be debated. Almost anything can be. I do not accept that the House should pass the Bill at this stage. It is the end of a rocky road. The Bill came to us as a bad Bill. I fear that it goes to another place still as a very bad Bill.
I should like to thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and worked extremely hard, along with representatives of some of the other parties, to try to get our case across. It was at times, I fear, a thankless task, but it was bravely discharged. I do not like the Bill. That is no secret. There are so many objections to it that they are difficult to summarise in what must be a reasonably brief speech. To some extent, we have been sandbagged just by two days of listening to the Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), during the closing stages.
I do not make any apology for referring to this. Today there has been published a useful summary of the

arguments, which came from a Conservative source. That was the Tory Reform Group publication in England and Wales. I am interested in the fact that the defence against quotations from the document is that they are invalidated by their English origin. It is a remarkable Conservative argument. The Secretary of State no doubt will remember that the Green Paper was a common document, which was given currency north and south of the border. The reason was simply that the arguments were the same north and south of the border, and it turned out that the solution was the same north and south of the border. It is remarkable that the Secretary of State should try to make a distinction and say that in some way, merely because an argument comes from an English branch of the Tory party, it is per se invalid. That suggests a certain amount of embarrassment.
I do not put enormous store on the Tory Reform Group and it would be ludicrous if I did, but it is worth saying to the Secretary of State that the group has on its notepaper the names of the deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Paymaster General, the Secretary of State for Energy and some other very respectable Conservative leadership figures. It is interesting that the group has come up with such sharp and trenchant criticism of the fundamentals of this series of proposals.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen the whole document, in which there is a specific reference to the fact that the group does not pretend to have consulted, far less received the approval of, those who are its patrons or vice-presidents.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman misinterprets my point. I am not suggesting that the views of the Tory Reform Group are the views of the Scottish Office. Perhaps they should be. Clearly, and sadly, they are not. I can do little about that. I am entitled to pray them in aid because they make a useful summary. I should like to draw the attention of the House—

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: I shall not give way.
I shall not spend the whole of my speech on the document, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to one or two points because they are put concisely and effectively. The Tory Reform Group says:
The real criticism is that Government was acting
in the cause of rating reform
in a haphazard way, making up these decisions as it went along. It had no clear idea as to why it had to intervene so constantly, what was so fundamentally wrong in local government and how to put it right.
I could not have put it better myself. The group went on to say:
The proposed community charge … is misconceived and it will undermine local self-government. This is because it will: involve substantial and excessive centralisation of power in Whitehall; isolate businesses from local government; fail to achieve the degree of accountability that is required; be administratively expensive.
That seems to be a very simple and straightforward account of our case and our attack upon the Bill.
On page 16, the group gives a very interesting account of how all this happened, and I think it is worth sharing it with the House. Hon. Members will remember that we have been very puzzled by the fact that the Government,


having gone through very careful preparation and considered investigation of the arguments, came to a measured conclusion in late 1983 that the rating system was fundamentally sound and that no major change was necessary. Then, suddenly, in one jump, we ended up with this extraordinary object, the Abolition of Rating Etc. (Scotland) Bill. We had our suspicions and have suggested what happened.
I will read what the Tory Reform Group thinks about it. It says :
What happened was that Ministers had to act with excessive haste. Up to the summer of 1984 the firm line being put out by the Department of the Environment was that rates were here to stay. Suddenly, with a difficult Party Conference debate on rates coming up, Ministers went into a 180 degree turn and felt that they had had to find a quick alternative to rates. It was one of the occasions when a Party Conference actually determined Government policy. The speed of change led the Department to bounce the key Cabinet Ministers into a poll tax…and to avoid having to put forward more considered alternatives.
That is a remarkably similar account of what happened to the one that we have put forward as the most likely, indeed the only, explanation we can think of. It is the group's submission that the Bill and the proposals that we are now seeing in this Bill in fact add up to
the centralisation of power and the administrative nightmare which the community tax will entail.
When we use words such as "administrative nightmare", as I freely concede we do, we are normally chided as being irresponsible and as putting forward propositions which no one could sustain.
I think that the Tory Reform Group has a lot going for it in these arguments, and I certainly believe that there may even be some support, although I do not know how widespread it is, for it in the ranks of the Conservative party.
I cannot resist saying that we took the trouble this morning to telephone the Tory Reform Group to ask it who its Scottish supporters were. We were told that its organiser is the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and that the assistant organiser is the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). We then telephoned the independent headquarters of the Tory Reform Group in Scotland, who turned out to be a gentleman who works in Conservative Central Office in Edinburgh. He had obviously had the message passed to him because he said in the most definitive terms that no Scottish Conservative Member had anything whatsoever to do with the Tory Reform Group.

Mr. Norman Hogg: He has been made a peer.

Mr. Dewar: Well, not quite yet; but he has certainly got Brownie points.
I must say to the hon. Lady that I was particularly interested in this because when I looked up her little biography in one of the standard works of reference I found a lot of rather outré judgments about her—that she is outspoken, formidable, vivacious, sexy and cuddly. Let me hasten to reassure the hon. Lady that as far as I know it is not a well-known fact that that is true. But what is also in the biography—and presumably it was supplied by the hon. Lady—is that she is a member of the Scottish executive of the Tory Reform Group.
Therefore, I hope that she has some respect for the views that her colleagues in England and Wales have put forward.
I will move on and say a word or two about some other aspects and leave the Tory Reform Group to its troubles and its problems and the wrath of its parliamentary colleagues. One thing it said in passing was that the English Ministers would have been required to see what happened in Scotland, to use Scotland as some sort of dry run, and, on the basis of the nightmare that enveloped us, the Government might be tempted to abandon their plans south of the border.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: If the hon. Gentleman considered a different situation, wherein England had gone through the revaluations that we have in Scotland, he might then say that the Tory Reform Group here in England might be thinking along the lines that the Tory Reform Group members in Scotland are at this very moment.

Mr. Dewar: I must say that that is an interesting admission. The hon. Lady is conceding that it was all panic over the revaluation and had nothing to do with the great matters of principle which have been imported into the debate by the Secretary of State. It was all to do with saving the votes of discontented Tories who were panicked by revaluation. That has the ring of truth, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on saying it.
I have never taken the view—here I disagree with the Tory Reform Group—that this was something that was being tried in Scotland at the behest of the English to see what happened. We were not being used as some sort of medical laboratory in which the virus was let loose. I believe that we have got this Bill because the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues want it. That is why I find it particularly alarming that someone who could get things so totally wrong should be in charge of so many other matters of importance. If I thought that the Secretary of State was being dragged reluctantly along, I might draw some consolation, albeit rather doubtful consolation, from that, but I believe that he wants this wrong-headed and misconceived legislation.
I believe that the Bill is misconceived and wrongheaded because, despite the special pleading, it is unrelated to the ability to pay. Self-evidently, at the most basic level, irrespective of one's income — I concede that I am talking about the position above the level of the rebate—the richest man in the land would pay the same as someone of very modest means. It is so much per skull across the board. Many of the statistics which are paraded are valid only because of the introduction of the 20 per cent. rule, which will victimise the lowest paid. We believe that that is absolutely unforgiveable and will bring genuine hardship in some cases. It is in my view only because the Government are doing that that they can give the most vestigial cloak of plausibility to their claim that this is not a seriously regressive tax.
Furthermore, it is based upon a flawed and irrelevant concept of accountability. I do not wish to overstate my case, but, reverting to the point that we have just been on, I genuinely believe that to imply that accountability demands that those who are the most disadvantaged in our society should pay 20 per cent. of their local taxation bill is a perversion of any argument of humanity or equity in British politics. I am very sorry indeed that this form of


argument should have been put forward. All that I can say to the Secretary of State is that we shall — [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) must contain himself.

Mr. Dewar: We have tried to advance arguments during the debate about the complications, expense and difficulties of collection and administration. I do not intend to discuss them even in the most brief fashion. We shall regret the Minister's attempts to minimise and sweep aside difficulties if the scheme is introduced.
The truth is that this is openly partisan legislation. It is an attempt by Ministers to help their own. I find it a most unpleasant phenomenon. As has been said, it will not work, because there are flaws in the scheme. Those who are meant to be beneficiaries will end up as victims. If the only way in which to increase income is by increasing the community charge, we shall hammer the burden on to a narrow tax base. One or two somewhat twisted people—twisted politically, and not in any other way—take pleasure from that prospect. But the trouble is that any responsible local authority wage settlement of perhaps 14 or 15 per cent., depending on the RSG percentage, will have to be funded out of locally raised revenue. At the moment, that burden is spread. The Secretary of State represents it as making commerce and industry the milch cow. That is not right. They use many local services, as do individual ratepayers. In any event, they will be largely excluded, as the only increase is subject to the RPI ceiling.
Therefore, if one has the kind of settlement that the teachers got, which is well supported by Members and has been praised as a statesmanlike settlement, it will have to be funded from increased community charges. To use a term that is familiar to people who work in the City, high gearing is involved. If one must increase one's revenue by perhaps 3 per cent., one is likely to find about 9 per cent. going to the community charge.
At the moment there are people who regard the issue from a selfish point of view as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in perhaps four or five years, when the gearing begins to take effect and the built-in escalator starts to work, the community charge will go up and up, and people will begin to wonder whether they received a favour from their local Conservative Member of Parliament.
There will be winners and losers. In a dismissive way, the Secretary of State seems to suggest that the only losers will be those who will be brought into the system. That is not true. There will be many other losers. The statistic that the Secretary of State forgot is his own basic one in the Green Paper. Fifty two per cent. of Scottish households will be worse off. That may not sound too dramatic until we see where the households are and who lives in them. The truth is that this measure has unashamedly been brought in to produce a shift in the balance of taxation in Scottish communities. Undoubtedly, it will result in a shift in favour of districts which, by any test that may be applied, are more comfortably off. Of course, the Government defend that argument. They say that the rating system is corrupt and helps those who are disadvantaged. That is what the argument is about. There

is no point in Conservative Members suggesting that there will not be a shift. The argument is whether the shift can be justified.
We must look at the victims—the people who will lose—who live in areas with poor services where life is difficult. We must compare them with those who live in areas which, by and large, support the Conservative party, and where there is already a high level of personal income. I concede that there will be many individual exceptions. There will be little old ladies, to use the parody of the argument for the sake of convenience, who will benefit.
If we look at the broader scope, which, as Scottish representatives, we are entitled to do, we shall see that there is no doubt that the legislation is selfish and has no basis in social justice or equity. It will undermine local democracy. It will centralise power to a dangerous extent. That is true whether there is a Labour or Conservative Secretary of State. It will bring sadness and sorrow to the people of Scotland if it comes into operatin. My hope, and fortunately my expectation, is that it never will.

Mr. Allan Stewart: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made a considerable claim about the Tory Reform Group document. Of course, that document is the sole responsibility of its author. I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's discomfort in that he must leave the Chamber immediately another hon. Member begins to speak. As my hon. Friend the Minister said in an earlier debate, it is worth reminding Opposition Members that that document states:
The decay of local government can be traced to the loss of democratic accountability and the disintegration of the traditional Labour party. The combination of the two has been devastating.
I have reiterated that so that Opposition Members have it clearly in mind. The hon. Member for Garscadden was rather ungallant to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), but he made a number of complaints about unflattering references to his hon. Friends during the long consideration of the Bill in Committee. I thought that it was a reasonably congenial Committee. The Opposition's problems were not competence, but the absence of a coherent policy behind which they could combine. That is why the Bill had such an easy ride in Committee.
The Bill will be considered in another place, and perhaps my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider introducing amendments for their Lordships to consider. One area of the Bill that is worthy of further thought is the position of the mentally handicapped, an issue that may well be raised in another place.
The principles on which the Bill is based have been set out clearly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. He said that about 750,000 people make no contribution to local authority expenditure in Scotland. The status quo is indefensible. The revaluation was important because it highlighted the deficiencies and unacceptability of the present system. That is why I believe the Bill will be welcomed by the people in Scotland. It will be welcomed by the wealth creators, who are currently reeling under the unacceptable rate increases that have been imposed upon them by regional councils, such as Lothian and Strathclyde.
The hon. Member for Garscadden made a considerable point about equity, but my right hon. and learned Friend


the Secretary of State dealt with that in his opening speech. It is worth emphasising that the bulk of local authority expenditure will be covered not by the community charge, but by the non-domestic ratepayer—[Interruption.]—or through the national Exchequer. Any Government are therefore able to set out a taxation system —[Interruption.]—to meet any social equity considerations. I wish that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Douglas) would stop acting as Dunfermline's answer to Falkirk, West.

Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman is a St. Andrews-trained economist, but I am not going to malign that university. I hope that he had some idea during his student days, if not as a Minister, of equity in taxation. I ask him to tell me of any degree of equity in a tax that everyone has to pay at a basic rate that is unavoidable. Where is the equity in such a tax?

Mr. Stewart: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of the abolition of value added tax, which has precisely the attributes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If the hon. Gentleman would listen instead of shouting and muttering all the time, I am saying that national Government can change the national taxation system to meet any social justice or equity criteria that they wish.
My constituency has been referred to throughout our consideration of the Bill. It will be of great benefit to people such as pensioners who wish to retain a reasonable standard of housing and to young couples who wish to extend or improve their homes. It is also of interest to my constituents that, during the course of the Bill, the Labour party has confirmed that it wishes to see the abolition of Eastwood district. The Social Democrats have confirmed that, in practice, their policies would also result in the abolition of Eastwood district. The policies of the Labour party and the Social Democratic party are not dissimilar, because of the long time scale suggested by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) with regard to the introduction of a local income tax.
It must be emphasised that the Government's proposals will be implemented on 1 April 1989. If by any mischance the proposals were not implemented—for example,
because of the results of the general election—the rating system in Scotland would not only continue, but the Scottish people would be faced with another revaluation in 1990.
1 congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on reaching Third Reading of the Bill. It has emerged unscathed from 125 hours in Committee. The Opposition have opposed the Bill without confidence, competence or clarity. I commend the Third Reading to the House.

Mr. Maclennan: If the Bill is enacted it will leave a successor Government with the urgent task of reintroducing a system of local government taxation that is fair, accountable and acceptable to the Scottish people.
The Government have rightly diagnosed what is wrong with the present system of rates and how capricious, complex and. in some cases, unjust that system has become. However, they have failed to replace that system with a system of local taxation that will command support and acceptance because of its equity and ease of administration. They have certainly not established a

system that will make local government more accountable for its expenditure. As a result of the decision on non-domestic rates—effectively to turn such rates into an assigned revenue, thus removing from local authorities any responsibility for determining the rate level—and the increased reliance upon central Government grant, local authorities will be left with a mere 13 per cent. of expenditure derived from personal taxation. How that system can possibly be dressed up by the Government as representing an increase in local accountability is beyond all sensible people, including the Tory Reform Group. The views of that group were quoted earlier by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar).
The Minister has said that the Bill was not subject to improvement in Committee. However, one major concession was made earlier tonight—the removal of the extraordinarily widely drawn power to amend, by regulation, any piece of legislation, subordinate or primary. The removal of that power was a concession to the powerful debate that took place in Committee. I believe that the Bill has been improved.
What has not been shaken is the Government's determination, made clear from the beginning, not merely to enact the Bill in the precise terms in which it was originally put before the House, but to do so with extraordinary speed. That has been done without the normal deliberations that have accompanied the consideration of past local government finance bills.
The Bill is of major constitutional importance because it is altering the balance of power between central and local government. It is altering that balance to fulfil the dogmatic requirement of the Government that they should have absolute control of public expenditure. They failed to achieve that end earlier by means of rate capping and direction and reduction of the grant element in the amounts available to local authorities. All the means that they have tried since 1979 have failed to satisfy the Government that they have got the reins of local government fairly in their grasp. They want to achieve that through the Bill, and that is why they have been so determined to get it through.
Because the Bill has that major constitutional aspect, I hope that another place will look at it hard and long and that not only Scottish, but English, peers will give it the scrutiny that it deserves—scrutiny that we have not been able to give it because of the manner in which the Government have driven it through. We know that it is a forerunner of what is to be done throughout the United Kingdom.
I notice that a distinguished member of the English so-called Tory Reform Group is Lord Whitelaw, whom I find it strange to be described as English not only because of his ancestry but because of his land owning in Scotland. I hope that these noble Lords will regard it as their constitutional duty to delay the Bill and subject it to rigorous scrutiny. If the Bill is not enacted before the dissolution of Parliament, that will be a service to the people of Scotland.
The Government pretend that they have safeguarded the position of those less well-off members of our community from the burden of universal taxation by a system of rebate. It is quite bizarre that this system is not incorporated in the Bill and that the Government have not explained in any detail how it is to be operated. It is


dependent upon the decisions of Government, which have not been made, but the Government expect the House and the country to believe that this is an equitable method.
There has been some argument about the winners and losers. Nobody is in a position to make an authoritative judgment about this, but it is clear that the balance of the burden will be shifted, and shifted substantially, to the disadvantage of the less well-off members of our community. It is also clear that the Public Finance Foundation was right to say that those households with an income under £200 per week will be much worse off, while households with an income over £200 per week will be much better off. That is the kind of broad conclusion that it is possible to draw, but it is not possible to draw more specific and precise conclusions because the Government have never provided the configuration. The illustrative figures published in the Green Paper have not been adhered to by the Government, and they have been treated merely as illustrative. We do not know how the new charge will operate.
As the Bill has gone through the House, the people of Scotland have not been attracted to what the Government have put forward. The Government have sought to interpret some criticisms made by the Labour party in Committee as being a failure in argument. That is not fair to the Labour party in Committee, nor is it a true interpretation of Scottish opinion.
Every responsible organ of opinion in Scotland—the Glasgow Herald, the Daily Record, The Scotsman and every other newspaper—has condemned this tax, as it properly should be condemned, as a tax appropriate only to uncivilised societies. The Government are not able to pray in aid of their scheme any example of this tax even being tried in another civilised country, for the obvious reason that no civilised country would impose a compulsory tax upon its destitute population.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Come off it.

Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman doubts that there are destitute people, he has not been around his constituency in recent weeks.
The Bill fails to remedy a mischief, and it will have to be corrected by a successor Government. It is not possible on Third Reading to describe in detail or at all the nature of the local income tax which is the most fair system to replace the existing creaking rates system.
It is now well understood that local income tax is the preferable system and it has operated successfully in a number of other countries. The people of Scotland have to look forward to the prospect of a more equitable system of local taxation, one which increases local accountability, following the defeat of this Government at the general election. I believe that this Bill will play a significant part in achieving that defeat.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Barry Henderson.

Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman yet.

Mr. Douglas: You are lucky, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Henderson: I am glad that not only you, Mr. Speaker, but Opposition Members are so anxious to hear

me. I am delighted at that. It may be helpful if I tell Opposition Members that I want to be as brief as I can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—If Opposition Members continue to interrupt me rudely and make noises, my speech will take longer. The trouble with the Opposition throughout the passage of the Bill, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, is that they have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the measure. They believe that levity, length, noise, rudeness or crudeness are a substitute for effective opposition.

Mr. Norman Hogg: What a pompous idiot!

Mr. Henderson: If the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) had come to the Committee Room and seen his hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) misbehaving himself and had done something about whipping him out of the place, I might not have received the kind of remarks that I have received now. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth heard his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) remarking about my hon. Friend the Member for Renfew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley). If such comments had been made by one of my hon. Friends about one of his hon. Friends, I should have heard some very rude remarks from the Opposition.
The Bill is about justice and responsibility —something about which the Opposition know all too little. That is why they will remain the Opposition for a very long time.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will not know about it because he will be out next time.

Mr. Henderson: If I am out next time, I can confidently say that a Labour person will not put me out—[Interruption.] Just as when I defeated the Labour candidate in East Dumbartonshire, it was not a Labour candidate who put me out.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The hon. Gentleman lost East Dumbartonshire.

Mr. Henderson: Of course I did, but the Labour candidate still could not defeat me there. I am sorry that I am taking longer that I intended, Mr. Speaker, but it is entirely because the Opposition keep interrupting me.
Throughout the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Minister has resisted exemptions from the community charge and he was absolutely right to do that. The Bill is now leaving the Commons and the Government have triumphed. They have won the argument and carried the House with conviction. There is, however, one exemption which they should seriously consider further, and I hope that it will be made in another place. I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that, because the Bill is about justice and responsibility, there is one section of the community to whom we should give more justice because they cannot accept responsibility. I refer to the mentally retarded and mentally handicapped.

Mr. Douglas: Do not be so patronising.

Mr. Henderson: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Douglas: Yes. I declare an interest because I have a daughter who is spastic.

Mr. Henderon: I know that.

Mr. Douglas: If the hon. Gentleman really feels that there should be such an exemption, he should have tabled an amendment earlier.

Mr. Henderson: I said as a preliminary to my remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister was quite right not to accept exemptions earlier.

Mr. Douglas: But that is what the Committee stage is for.

Mr. Henderson: The Opposition could have made that point and tabled amendments themselves, but they did not.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: I have given way a great deal.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time.

Mr. Henderson: The Opposition will say that I am detaining the House when there is a guillotine. I am doing my best to make a brief speech which is relevant to the Bill and I am being prevented from doing so by Opposition Members. I shall give way if they want me to, so long as they do not then accuse me of making a long speech.

Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Henderson: I think that I shall get on. The hon. Member has had 100 hours to make his arguments, which he did incompetently and inadequately. He will get a chance to make his own speech before the end of the debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider further representations on this matter and make this one exemption to the community charge in another place. I hope that a satisfactory formula which achieves that objective can be found. I realise that there will be problems doing that, but I hope that such a formula is beginning to form in my hon. Friend's mind.
In view of the barrenness of the Opposition's arguments, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Garscadden prayed in aid the Tory Reform Group. So few are the Labour party's arguments that the most effective argument that it could hope to raise on Third Reading was from a Tory publication.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A Tory Reform Group publication.

Mr. Henderson: Indeed.
The Bill proves that the Government care about Scotland and that it is the Tories who speak for Scotland and want to correct a system that has been unjust for years. Opposition Members are right to say that the community charge will apply to all adults in Scotland, but they are wrong when they say, as they often do, that all will pay the same. I hope that they will try to remember to differentiate between the two.
It was sad to hear the hon. Member for Garscadden, an honest man, defending a corrupt system. Indeed, it has been sad to hear the Labour party throughout our proceedings on the Bill. It has been sad to hear a party which claims to be radical defending the status quo and forgetting its roots.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on presenting such a major Bill. The subject has defeated many fine men and women before, but he has found the

solution and an alternative to the rating system. This Conservative Scottish ministerial team has shown the way forward for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) has just said that the Bill is about justice. Not even his hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench pitched the thing that high. We are all aware that it is a panic measure that was brought in by the reaction against the second revaluation in Scotland. The Government's supporters in Scotland made their opposition known and therefore the Bill was cobbled together.
The hon. Member for Fife, North-East discussed the great advantages that the Bill would bring. It is only three years since his own Front Bench said that they could not think of a better system for raising local authority revenue in Scotland. However, all of a sudden he describes the system as corrupt. We all know of the great inefficiencies and the many anomalies in the rating system. I should not have supported that system. The Labour party agreed that a local income tax would be the answer.
The Bill is a remedy that is worse than the disease. One of its outstanding points is that, regardless of income, people will have to pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates bill. Even a means test has been abandoned. The poorest in the community will be obliged to pay 20 per cent. towards the poll tax, which hits the lowest paid the hardest. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has stated :
The new charge will be more regressive than rates. Those on high incomes will be the biggest gainers.
There is no way round that. My hon. Friends have suggested an income tax that would at least take into account the ability to pay. However, the Bill does nothing of the kind. Local authorities in Scotland have been bedevilled by the gradual erosion of the rate support grant. The Government pretend that they have nothing to do with the fact that services are disappearing. However, that is due to the way in which the Government have gradually cut off funds from local authorities.
I am a Highlander and I make no claim to second sight, but I advise the House that the Bill will never be implemented in Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: I support the Bill on its Third Reading. I should especially like to draw attention to one of the amendments that was agreed to yesterday. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will appreciate the wonderful reception that the amendment affecting sports grounds has received in Scotland. Scottish people are looking forward to the fact that they will begin to see real benefits in such activities because local authorities will have discretion and will know that they will be refunded.
It is interesting to listen to the comments of Opposition Member about the Bill. If one listened to them carefully—I listened to them carefully yesterday as well as today
—one got the impression that we would have to be made to introduce such a Bill at this time if we wanted to be re-elected. According to them, it has no friends and will be rejected by the Scottish electorate.
I have news for the Opposition. I am delighted to go back to Tayside, North and to fight the next election on


the basis of this Bill and my party's record in government. I am happy to face any of the Opposition parties. Quite frankly, it is nonsense for them to say that, because we all know how popular the Bill will be among the people who care about what happens in local authorities. It will certainly be popular in Tayside, North. I have no doubt whatsoever about that.
I also know that the Scottish people will see the fairness of the system, in which differences in incomes will be taken into account. The impression has been given that there will be no rebates. Of course there will be rebates—that is provided for in the Bill—and of course account has been taken of the fact that individuals have different circumstances. I am prepared to stand on any public platform and defend the reason why 20 per cent. should be paid by all those who are adults and making use of—[Interruption.] I am happy to defend that position. I am not ducking that issue any more than I duck issues on nuclear disarmament or anything else. It is my experience that if one gives the true reason for doing something, one need not fear the reaction from one's supporters. I am not ashamed that I speak for those whom I expect to support me. It is right that a caring Government should make decisons centrally in order to care for those who need to be cared for. That is why we have social security benefits, housing benefits, and so on.
It is also true that there has been a ghastly failure in getting people to take an interest in and to participate in local government. There has been a decline in the numbers who vote.

Mr. George Foulkes: That is not true.

Mr. Walker: I can remember when greater numbers turned out to vote in Dundee than do today, so do not tell me that there has not been a loss of interest. [Interruption.] There has been. [Interruption.] There have been reductions in the numbers of voters and the reason is that people cannot relate what goes on at local level to what they want done—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Member a fair hearing.

Mr. Walker: The Bill will have the additional effect of making people want to vote because they will know that that they are contributing to the cost of services, even if it is only 20 per cent. Twenty per cent. of an increasing figure, when local authorities wish to spend more money, will give voters an interest. That is why I am happy to defend the Bill and to welcome it.

Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill. I have not had an opportunity during previous stages for one reason or another, such as—

Mr. Wilson: Laziness.

Mr. Foulkes: No. No one can accuse me of not wishing to participate in matters of all kinds—[Interruption.]— whether I have responsibility for them or not. I have not had the opportunity because I have been preoccupied with matters—

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Worldwide.

Mr. Foulkes: —beyond this country, as the Secretary of State, were he here, would recall that he used to be before he was promoted.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) as he is the only Conservative Member who was supported by more than 50 per cent. of the electorate at the general election. Given the relative wealth of his constituents, I can understand why he is so enthusiastic about these proposals. Moreover, if the poll tax were introduced there is a grave danger of his being the only Scottish Conservative Member after the general election.
I am also glad that I was present for the unique opportunity of hearing the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) speak.

Mr. Henderson: I spoke about the Bill.

Mr. Foulkes: It was the first time that I have heard someone concede defeat not merely before the election takes place but before it is even announced.

Mr. Henderson: I am well aware that I shall continue to be the Member of Parliament for Fife, North-East. I said that in no way was I going to be beaten by a Labour candidate. I could have gone on and said that I would not be beaten by an SNP candidate, a Liberal candidate, an SDP candidate, an Ecology candidate or any other.

Mr. Foulkes: It has taken a long time for the hon. Gentleman to remember to add those and all hon. Members present understood that in a state of panic the hon. Gentleman spoke the truth.
I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a few words because this is a very important matter. For nine years before I came to this House I had the opportunity of being in local government as a member of the Edinburgh corporation—where I served not alongside but opposite the Secretary of State for Scotland—and subsequently on the Lothian regional council. Unlike some Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Tayside, North, I have some experience of local government and its pressures. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Two more hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Foulkes: The Bill is of somewhat doubtful parentage, born of two trends or pressures. The first was the revolt of the ratepayers, particularly in Troon. I remember the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), when he was Secretary of State for Scotland, panicking at the pressure put on him from the ratepayers of Troon, and his fear of losing his seat. He still faces that danger, and I do not expect him to be the Member for Ayr after the election.
The second pressure, the second parent of the Bill, was the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who was considered by most of his hon. Friends as somewhat eccentric in putting forward the idea of a poll tax. [Interruption.] He was regarded as extreme as well as eccentric. I well recall how he was put down time and again by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the present Secretary of State and both Under-Secretaries of State, the hon. Members for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) and for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram). All the people now espousing the cause of community charges were putting down the hon. Member for Stirling and saying what a silly little upstart he was to


come up with such an idea. The truth is that he is the other parent of this bastard child, the community charge—or poll tax, as I and others in the House prefer to call it.
The poll tax must be opposed for six reasons. First, it is unfair. Secondly, it is costly to administer and a waste of resources. Thirdly, it will disrupt the family. The party which claims to be the party of the family is disrupting the family through the tensions that will be created between sons and daughters and the householder who is responsible to pay. Fourthly, it is against Scottish opinion. No serious opinion in Scotland is in favour of it. The recent poll in the Glasgow Herald gave the Conservative party only 19 per cent. support in Scotland. Fifthly, this tax is the easiest to evade. The one good thing about rates is that they are difficult to avoid. It is difficult to hide property because a house cannot be tucked away somewhere.
I think my next point is number six. I was always good at arithmetic. From what we have heard from the Tory Reform Group in England—I shall not mention names—we will get a strange and eccentric system. The hon. Member for Stirling described it as an extreme tax and it is clear that the example will not be followed in England. We will be out on an unfair, unfortunate, eccentric and extreme limb. The people of Scotland do not want this tax and I am certain that they will reject it at the next election.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I do not feel able in the time allowed to me to respond to some of the points about doubtful parentage.
There are six good reasons for supporting the Bill. The first is because, apparently, the Tory Reform Group is opposed to it. The second is that throughout the passage of the Bill the Labour party has singularly failed to make any case against it.—[Hon. Members : "Not at all."] Opposition Members say, "Not at all." However, they insist on calling it a poll tax rather than a community charge because they sought to identify in the minds of the electors that their ability to vote was somehow linked to whether or not they paid a tax. They knew that they could not defeat the community charge on the basis of argument, so they had to spread fear and alarm.
The third reason for supporting the Bill is that it will help the elderly, pensioners and single-parent families. The Opposition have sought to dismiss them as they have sought to dismiss every other group which will benefit, on the ground that there are not many of them.
The fourth reason for giving the Bill a Third Reading is that it will deal with the problem that the Tory Reform Group identified in its report as being central to local government difficulties—the problem of the loony Left and the extremists in the Labour party who have their hands on the levers of power in local government. Because the system of local government funding does not have built-in accountability, they are able to carry out their policies, secure in the knowledge that they will be voted in again and again by people who do not have to pay for their decisions. Their extremism has been encouraged, but it has failed.
The fifth reason for supporting the Bill is that, by its reaction in Scotland to the measure, the Labour party has shown that it believes it is a fairer system. Opposition Members may scoff, but only last night they suggested a pilot scheme to see how it would work and in Committee they argued that the rating system is unfair. The

Opposition parties have singularly failed to come up with an alternative to the rating system, yet they all admit that the rating system is failing in Scotland and is bad for local Government.
The sixth reason for supporting the Bill is that it is good for local government. It will restore spending decisions and accountability to local level. The whole machinery of central control over expenditure will disappear and councillors, Labour and Conservative, will be able to stand for election and give their expenditure plans, knowing that everyone will have to make a contribution to implementing those plans and that there will be true local, democratic accountability, which the Labour party has always said it favours.
One other reason why the Bill is good news for Scotland is that we have finally dealt with a problem that Labour councils have allowed to grow in Scotland—sports clubs. Labour councils have had an opportunity to help sports clubs and, with one or two notable exceptions, they have refused to do so.

Mr. Douglas: What about Fife?

Mr. Forsyth: I said "with one or two notable exceptions", of which Fife is one. Strathclyde, Central and all the other Labour councils in Scotland have failed to follow that lead. The Bill provides an opportunity for them to help sports clubs in Scotland, without any financial penalties for them to hide behind.
The Bill should be given a Third Reading because it is good for the people of Scotland and local government and bad for the Labour party.

Mr. Douglas: We have heard advocates of Tory reform support a radical reforming measure. The Secretary of State is a man who, one might say not disparagingly, is looking at any time for a backbone to crawl up. On other occasions, he is a man of principle, but when he grasps a principle it crumbles and is destroyed in his own hands.
Conservative Members assert that this poll tax will make local government more responsible. Every penny that we get in this House comes from the transfer of taxes. The burden of tax is not on us, but does that make us irresponsible? Does it make us irresponsible because the burden of taxation is, in practice, not on us—[Interruption.] Other people pay taxes to pay us. The Secretary of State does not understand that. It is a little beyond him at this time of night. We get paid because other people pay taxes. We are extremely responsible in terms of the political process.
Teachers are paid out of the transfer of taxation. What we are trying to obtain here, in the overall balance of taxation, is an equitable and fair system. Other people pay taxes—[Interruption.] I do not want to lecture the Secretary of State on economics. It is difficult, because he is a lawyer and he does not understand economic matters. Taxes are levied on us, but we pass them on, because we do not pay them. This is part of the problem in local government. What is happening with this tax[Interruption.] The Secretary of State has been absent for most of this Third Reading debate, and he has exposed the House to extreme discourtesy. This tax, which the Secretary of State asserts will make people more responsible, is inequitable. It is an unavoidable tax.
We have heard some hypocritical statements from the Johnny-come-latelies, who have suddenly discovered that


a group of people who would have not normally paid tax to local authorities—the mentally handicapped—will have to do so. We had two Conservative Members, not one, pleading with the Secretary of State, "Why cannot something be done for this group?" That was minutes after they had voted against our amendment which tried to get remission of the poll tax for certain classes of people. It does not come prudently from the mouths of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to support this tax and then to say, "But there are certain groups who ought not to pay it." I ask the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), who has Auchtermuchty in his constituency, to go to Auchtermuchty town hall and find people queueing up who want this tax. There has not been one meeting in his constituency.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman must have seen advertised in the Fife Herald the open public meeting which was addressed in the corn exchange.

Mr. Douglas: How many came? It was the talk of the women's rural institute and others in Auchtermuchty. They are all queueing up to support this tax.
As I said about another noxious Bill that went through the House — the Dockyard Services Bill — the Government should ensure that the media and the people whom a Bill affects are persuaded that it is a good thing.
I have challenged the Secretary of State to come to Dunfermline and debate not just this measure but the whole orbit of Government policy as it affects Fife. I have asked him to see whether he can persuade people there to support the measure. There is no bedrock of public opinion that desires this iniquitous and inequitable measure.
The Secretary of State has proposed the measure—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State should not tempt me from a sedentary position on what to say about the Bill. He knows full well that this is a panic measure which is being dressed up by the slick process that he has adopted in Scotland to try to persuade the Scottish people that the Bill will remove the burden not just from those who have difficulty in paying but from all areas of the population who desire to see some reform of local government taxation.
If the Secretary of State wants the Bill pushed forward not just by Scottish Members but by Tory Members, and if it goes through another place and eventually becomes law, we shall rue the day when we adopted this Bill which turns the clock back.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Why, if the Bill is so wonderful, does it apply only to Scotland? Why was it not introduced for the whole of Britain?

Mr. Douglas: The answer is reasonably simple. Because of revaluation in Scotland, the panic is more evident there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. If it is such a boon—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the Front Bench spokesmen have had no time to respond to the debate.

Mr. Douglas: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I usually obey your strictures and rulings, but the Bill has been dragooned through because the Government have an

overwhelming majority. If the Bill is such a boon and a blessing to men, why is it being introduced initially only in Scotland and not in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Michael J. Martin: My hon. Friend will know that the Caterpillar workers and the old-age pensioners were lobbying Parliament. Will he tell the House whether any of those influential bodies wanted this poll tax?

Mr. Douglas: There is no evidence of any support whatsoever, except for a very small number of people in Scotland, especially the small businesses which, I would argue, do not really understand the implications of this Bill and the damage it will cause there.
One of the points that the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) made—he raised it as usual in an extremely eclectic manner—was that local authorities did not pay attention to sports clubs. One of the provisions in the previous—

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [11 February] and the Resolution [4 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 150.

Division No. 112]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cope, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Crouch, David


Arnold, Tom
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dunn, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Durant, Tony


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Best, Keith
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Emery, Sir Peter


Blackburn, John
Fallon, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Favell, Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry


Bulmer, Esmond
Grylls, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby


Colvin, Michael
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Conway, Derek
Knowles, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Knox, David






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Latham, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Lord, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lyell, Nicholas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spencer, Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maclean, David John
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Major, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Marland, Paul
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Marlow, Antony
Stokes, John


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mather, Sir Carol
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moate, Roger
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Murphy, Christopher
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Norris, Steven
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Ward, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pollock, Alexander
Wheeler, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Whitfield, John


Powley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Price, Sir David
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Yeo, Tim


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Rossi, Sir Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Mr. Michael Portillo.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Clay, Robert


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clelland, David Gordon


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bell, Stuart
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Boyes, Roland
Corbett, Robin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Craigen, J. M.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leilh)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)





Deakins, Eric
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Mikardo, Ian


Dobson, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dormand, Jack
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Fatchett, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
O'Brien, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Park, George


Fisher, Mark
Parry, Robert


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Forrester, John
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foulkes, George
Radice, Giles


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Randall, Stuart


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Raynsford, Nick


George, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hancock, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hardy, Peter
Sheerman, Barry


Heffer, Eric S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampf'n NE)


Home Robertson, John
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Skinner, Dennis


Howells, Geraint
Smith, C(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Soley, Clive


Janner, Hon Greville
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Kirkwood, Archy
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Leadbitter, Ted
Tinn, James


Leighton, Ronald
Wallace, James


Litherland, Robert
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wareing, Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Weetch, Ken


Loyden, Edward
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
White, James


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Rt Hon A.


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Gordon


McTaggart, Robert
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Woodall, Alec


Madden, Max
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marek, Dr John



Martin, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Maynard, Miss Joan
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

RECOGNITION OF TRUSTS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Durant.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.
Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Durant.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That in the course of its consideration of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 23rd March at half-past Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Cope.]

Afghanistan

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting my debate on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Afghanistan. The subject is a timely one in view of the reopening at Geneva last week of the United Nations proximity talks to discuss the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to Moscow later this month.
The last occasion on which I raised the subject of Afghanistan in an Adjournment debate was on 20 December 1985, one week before the sixth anniversary of the Soviet invasion and subsequent occupation, an occupation by invitation, it was said, to counter foreign interference, just like the invitation from Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956. I did so then because I felt that there existed a distinct danger that in the euphoria that was following the first summit meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev there might be a temptation to some in the West to compromise their original position over Afghanistan in a desire to pursue detente and achieve success in arms control.
I raise the subject again tonight because of what has happened since and what is happening now, which may also tempt some to compromise to match Mr. Gorbachev's recent quite remarkable and, on the face of it, encouraging rhetoric on internal reforms in the Soviet Union and accommodation on arms control. It is especially important that, at this time, we continue to give the fullest possible support to Pakistan as it continues to negotiate on behalf of free Afghanistan, bearing as it does the considerable strain imposed on it with the presence of more than 3 million Afghan refugees and, in recent days, the totally unacceptable air raids on its border villages by the Afghan air force which have killed 66 people and injured many more. I hope that appropriate protests to the Afghan authorities have been made.
In many ways, the seventh year of Soviet occupation has seen an intensification of the conflict on both sides. Mr. Gorbachev has been making new political attempts to impose a Communist-dominated solution on Afghanistan, while demanding a more effective military response against the Mujahideen, who have responded in kind. In May last year, the Kremlin replaced one puppet leader, Babrak Karmel, as general secretary of the so-called Ruling Peoples Democratic party—the Communist party—with another, Dr. Najib, who had impeccable Marxist credentials and a reputation for ruthless brutality as head of the KGB-trained Afghan secret police, the Khad.
As a member of the largest tribal group, the Pashtuns, Dr. Najib has been trying to widen the basis of support for his regime through a policy of national reconciliation. His measures have included an attempt to strengthen his depleted and demoralised armed forces through new conscription, the staging of local elections and the convening of jirgas—traditional councils—the inclusion of non-party figures in his administration, and protestations of his regime's respect for Afghan traditions and the Islamic religion. Emulating Mr. Gorbachev, Dr. Najib has


campaigned against inertia and corruption in the party, for which he blames the regime's lack of success in mobilising popular support.
Parallel to that has been a new drive on the part of the Kremlin to convince the world of its desire to withdraw from Afghanistan as soon as possible. In July, Mr. Gorbachev announced in Vladivostock that six Soviet regiments—about 5 per cent. of the total of about 115,000 troops in Afghanistan—would be withdrawn. He repeated that announcement during his following visit to India. It was clearly intended to impress the forthcoming new round of United Nations-sponsored talks. In October great publicity was made, with the actual withdrawal timed to precede the annual debate on Afghanistan at the United Nations General Assembly.
That had little effect—quite the reverse, in fact. The plenary session, which my hon. Friend the Minister addressed on behalf of the 12 member states of the European Community, on which I heartily congratulate him, passed by 122 votes to 21, with 11 abstentions, a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal of foreign troops. Meanwhile, the Mujahideen maintains its brave resistance throughout most of the country, inflicting heavy losses on Soviet and Afghan forces, particularly convoys travelling to and from the Soviet Union, and attempting to reinforce garrisons within the country. They continue to control large parts of towns and whole areas of countryside. They remain active in and around the capital, Kabul, in which areas exist where no Russian dares to go. They are showing greater ability to co-ordinate their activities and to speak with one voice.
That is despite the increasingly sophisticated approach to strategy and tactics by Soviet forces, using smaller units and mobile helicopter-borne troops, and especially their specialised commandos, the Spetnaz, together with ruthless Soviet and Afghan retaliation against the civilian population and the continued abuse of human rights that has so rightly been condemned by the United Nations in response to the reports of its special rapporteur.
Only recently have we learnt of the new Soviet AK74 rifle being used against the Mujahideen with dum-dum bullets which wreak devastating damage to the human body in total violation of the Geneva convention. In his reply to the debate which 1 initiated in December 1985, my hon. Friend the Minister referred in some detail to the rapporteur's previous findings: the conscription of children aged 15 years, the displacement of people from their homes, acts of brutality by the armed forces, the bombardment and massacre of villages, and the use of anti-personnel mines and of booby-trapped toys, all of which have been responsible for the deaths of more than 500,000 Afghans since 1979, most of them innocent civilians.
Similar abuse of human rights has been noted by Amnesty International, whose report last November referred to widespread and systematic torture of political prisoners by the KHAD with the participation of Soviet personnel, and the prevention of the international committee of the Red Cross from visiting Afghan prisons since 1982. Unlike its protestations against prisons in Turkey, we hear nothing from the Left about conditions in Afghanistan. Throughout last year the refugee problem has remained largely ignored by public opinion throughout the world. According to UNICEF last June, the population of Afghanistan is now 7 million compared with 15 million in the 1977 census. Over 3 million refugees

in Pakistan constitute the largest concentration of refugees in the world. A further 2 million are in Iran. We should all be grateful for the widespread international aid and voluntary help given to Pakistan to service the 350 camps and to provide food to the families. This includes £40 million worth of aid from Britain since 1980. The European Community, too, has provided substantial help. The American Congress is to consider $4 billions worth of further aid to Pakistan later this month.
It is no doubt because of the consistent attitude of the United Nations, of the Islamic conference and of the Non-Aligned Movement that Mr. Gorbachev, through Dr. Najib, announced a qualified six-month ceasefire with the Afghan resistance starting on 15 January, an amnesty for rebel prisoners, the formation of Government of national unity to include resistance leaders and a guaranteed safe passage for them to take part in peace talks. As the House knows, such an offer has been rejected out of hand by the Mujahideen. To it, the acceptance of a ceasefire without a total, immediate and unconditional end to Soviet occupation after so much sacrifice and suffering would be tantamount to a shameful surrender to the enemy. No doubt Stalin took the same view against Hitler in the 1940s.
To the Mujahideen, complete peace and security will return only upon the unconditional withdrawal of Soviet forces and the overthrow of the atheist puppet Government and the establishment of an Islamic state. A coalition Government with the present regime would serve only to maintain Soviet influence, and would be a certain recipe for continued civil was as well as to contradict succesive resolutions of the United Nations. To the Mujahideen, any invitation to refugees to return is interpreted as a new source of enforced conscripts I o bolster the Afghan army.
At the mass rally of the Islamic alliance of the Afghan Mujahideen in Peshawar on 17 January, it confirmed its commitment to a ceasefire following the withdrawal of Soviet troops, to the establishment of an interim Government to supervise elections to a representative Islamic Government who would be empowered to draft a constitution, the immediate establishment of a commission to draft guidelines for that Government, and the formation of a means of arbitration to resolve differences between the individual groups. It fears, however, that its resolve will not be matched by those who have supported it in the past or who are now negotiating on its behalf. It fears that we in the West will be charmed by Mr. Gorbachev, in the interest of "real politik", into accepting an Afghanistan within the Soviet sphere of influence. It fears that ex-King Zahir Shah, who has already been approached by the Najib regime, will be an acceptable head of state for a client Government.
The Mujahideen fears that the Islamic conference is wavering in its previous insistence on an immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops. It fears that China and Iran might compromise their previous support as a trade-off for better relations with Moscow. lit fears that Pakistan, which has been under so much economic strain as a result of the presence of the refugees who are blamed for unrest and riots among its population, will finally climb down from its previous insistence on a withdrawal of Soviet troops within four months instead of two years. It fears an end to western aid as part of the compromise, thus leaving the


Mujahideen isolated and increasingly defenceless against the Soviet forces intent on eliminating all those who refuse to join the coalition Government.
I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply tonight. I look forward to hearing from him that Her Majesty's Government continue to support fully the sovereignty of the Afghan people, their right to determine their country's future, be it neutral or non-aligned as suggested by Lord Carrington in 1980, or in alignment with others, Islamic or otherwise, if that is their wish.
I look forward to the Government's insistence that a timetable of Soviet withdrawal must not be linked with negotiations between the Afghans themselves, and that it must take place as soon as possible to allow those negotiations to commence. I look forward to the Government's insistence that any plan suggesting the supremacy of the Communist People's Democratic party, which would have to be enforced with terror and the denial of human rights, as in all other Communist countries, is totally unacceptable.
I look forward to the confirmation of continued aid and support to the Mujahideen until the Soviet forces have withdrawn from Afghanistan lock, stock and barrel. Finally, I look forward to learning that they are the messages that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be taking to Moscow with her later this month.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for selecting this important topic for debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for moving the motion this evening.
This debate is extremely timely. The personal representative of the United Nations Secretary-General is conducting renewed proximity talks in Geneva between Pakistan and the Kabul regime. We wish Mr. Cordovez's efforts well. There can be no military solution to the dreadful war of occupation in Afghanistan. There can only be a political settlement, and it must be genuine. The Afghan people deserve no less after the horrors of the past seven years.
Afghanistan's fate offers a clear warning to independent and sovereign nations within reach of the Soviet Union's military might. They know that, seven years ago, 85,000 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The number has now risen to more than 110,000. At the last United Nations general assembly, 122 countries again endorsed the principles that could—if the Russians wish—be the basis of real and lasting peace. Those principles are the complete and immediate withdrawal of the Soviet forces, the right to self-determination of the Afghan people, the safe and honourable return of the refugees, and the restoration of Afghanistan's independence and nonalignment. Only 20 countries joined the Soviet Union in voting against such a sensible recipe for a peaceful solution to the agonies of Afghanistan.
We have noted with interest the many Soviet statements of intent to withdraw from Afghanistan. Do they want a genuine political settlement? Or are they merely trying to achieve, by cosmetic political gestures, what they failed to achieve militarily? Only they can answer. That answer is needed now. Stage-managed "withdrawals" like that of

last October are irrelevant. Each month's delay, each year's delay, in withdrawing Soviet troops is another month or year of brutal pressure on the people of Afghanistan, to ensure that they acquiesce in the loss of their freedom.
We must not forget what is really going on. My hon. Friend painted a grim picture. Just over a year ago Mr. Gorbachev called Afghanistan a "bleeding wound". The blood has not been staunched. Things have only got worse. A few days ago in Geneva the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights, Dr. Ermacora, reported on the situation. His analysis shows clearly that the human tragedy continues to unfold. He estimates that between 10,000 and 12,000 civilians died last year in the period up to September alone.
He reports :
Official government statements that refugees are returning in great number are not confirmed by officials in Pakistan and Iran who are directly responsible for the refugee problem. Such returns, if any, have been sporadic and negligible in relation to the total refugee population…The total of Afghan refugees might now be estimated to be in excess of 5 million".
The special rapporteur quotes recent examples of oppression in Afghanistan. They are, for instance the execution of four inmates of the Pol i Charki prison in January, the death of 500 civilians in early September 1986, following a bombardment in Kunduz, the destruction of a clinic at Shinwar in Nangahar province in November and, at the same time, three bombardments of a basic health unit in Tani in Paktia province, the very critical food situation resulting from the armed conflict in some areas, and the widespread measures adopted to impose alien cultural values—especially through the system of education.
Dr. Ermacora's conclusions took careful note of the Kabul regime's recent initiatives of what it chose to call a "ceasefire", a "national reconciliation" and an "amnesty". He noted that the amnesty was not unconditional, that certain types of political crimes were excluded and that its implementation depended on the screening of the cases by a commission, the composition of which corresponded to the political structure of the regime.
Dr. Ermacora adds :
In spite of the political declarations concerning peaceful reconciliation, there has so far been no marked change in the human rights situation in the country : fighting is continuing, particularly in the border areas: many wounded persons are crossing the border and the number of refugees is increasing steadily".
Therefore, says the UN special rapporteur
the unchanged human rights situation continues to be the source of deepest concern because of the sufferings of the civilian population and the magnitude of the economic, social and cultural problems confronting millions of refugees.
That, then, is the reality, described not by a partial observer but by the representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In addition, as my hon. Friend pointed out, Amnesty International has painted a grim picture of torture of political prisoners. Its reports said :
Torture is widespread and systematic. It is most commonly inflicted on men and women prisoners held in the custody of Khad (the secret police)".
Soviet personnel were allegedly present during many of the torture sessions. Hon. Members will know that Khad, this instrument of torture, now grandly renamed the Ministry of State Security, is the power base of Najib, who ran it until the Russians moved him to replace Karmal, no doubt hoping he could win Afghan hearts and minds where Karmal had failed.
Can such a man inspire Afghan confidence? On 12 January, less than two weeks after asking the Mujahideen to lay down their arms, he told the Ministry of State Security that during this so-called process of
national reconciliation…the role and importance of the organ of the Ministry of State Security, its political bodies and its party organisations will be further enhanced.
In other words, at a time of national reconciliation, as he calls it, he was calling for a strengthening of the role and power of the secret police.
As we speak, major military operations continue along the border with Pakistan, and Pakistan's international border continues to be repeatedly violated. There have been nearly 300 bombing raids and other incidents this year alone. We all greatly admire the forbearance of the Pakistan Government in the face of this threat to their security. A week ago, shortly after the Geneva talks resumed, at least 110 people died and 200 were injured in Afghan regime air raids on Pakistani border towns—the worst such incidents since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Government wholeheartedly condemn such atrocious and provocative attacks which come at a time when the Soviet Union and Kabul regime claim to be engaged in serious negotiations for a peaceful, political settlement. Moreover, Kabul regime inspired terrorist bombing incidents inside Pakistan territory were reported almost daily last month. There were over 500 such incidents last year.
It is astonishing that some hon. Members—not previously noted for their humanitarian concerns in Afghanistan and noticeably absent tonight—put their names to early-day motions 587, 588 and 593 concerning alleged breaches of the ceasefire offer and the shooting down of an Antonov 26 aircraft near Khost. Khost was precisely the area in Paktia province where the Kabul regime and the Russians were concentrating major military operations. Not only is it unusual that civilian aircraft are allowed anywhere near military operations, but the AN26 is an aircraft used for ferrying military personnel. Nor can a "ceasefire" be "breached" when it is unilateral, when it requires the other side effectively to surrender and when it is not applied in the first place to the border areas where most regime attacks have concentrated. Such early-day motions bring the House into disrepute. Certain honourable Members find it convenient to overlook the thousands of civilians killed through the bombardment of their villages, the women, children and old men lying dreadfully wounded in International Committee of the Red Cross hospitals in Peshawar and Quetta, and the fact that one third of the Afghan people have been forced to flee abroad. At least 85,000 refugees have crossed into Pakistan in the last year.
Mr. Speaker, the Government will continue to provide substantial aid to Afghan refugees and victims of the war. The Russians and the regime use a deliberate policy of depopulation and crop destruction in certain strategic areas. Instead of villages full of life, there remain just empty shells. Drought and famine will play an increasing role in coming months. Those who do not become refugees have two choices—to go to Kabul, where the population has swollen over seven years from 700,000 to 2·5 million, or to go to the hills. In Kabul, the Soviet-style education system spreads communist propaganda. The rural areas are abandoned to the brave European and humanitarian organisations which provide the only health, education and other services. The Russians are trying to

remove the sea so that the fish cannot swim, but they reckoned without the morale and bravery of the Afghan resistance, which remain as high as ever. The Russians should learn from Afghanistan's history that they cannot break the spirit of the Afghan people.
Why do we know so little about the real war? While Western journalists are invited to Kabul, which is surrounded by 20,000 Soviet troops, a condition of the .so-called ceasefire offered by Kabul in January was an end to the illegal entry of foreign journalists into the area beyond Kabul's control. Journalists take their lives in their hands when they try to tell the tale of the true horror of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
The Afghan resistance has grown in political coordination. We admire its continuing courage against great odds in resisting foreign domination, and we welcome the increasing co-ordination under certain commanders inside Afghanistan. We will continue to keep in touch with them. The resistance leaders must be involved in a settlement.
I have already spoken of the current pressures being exerted on the Pakistan Government. It is much to their credit that they have maintained a principled position, while doing their utmost to contribute to the search for a real solution.
Peace is urgently needed. The key lies in Moscow. We welcome any reduction in the fighting but for peace, to last it must address the root problems and solutions. We assure the Soviet Union that neither we, the rest of Europe nor the West have any interest in prolonging the war. We recognise that an independent Afghanistan should have friendly relations with all its neighbours—including, of course, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is in a quandary. If it is still its objective to preserve at all costs an Afghan regime dominated by a client Communist party, it will still be propping it up and fighting an unwinnable war years from now. If it wants to move towards a genuine settlement, it can be assured that we will be constructive. The UN package contains guarantees of non-interference and non-intervention designed to meet Soviet concerns. A neutral Afghanistan has also been referred to by Soviet leaders.
The first step needed is for the Russians to make an irrevocable commitment to a short timetable for the departure of their troops. This would build confidence so that the Afghans would be encouraged to work towards a genuinely representative Government in order that a genuinely representative Government can evolve.
Trying to predetermine a Government based on Najib or the Communist party simply will not work. That is not self-determination. Najib's references to
consolidating the gains of the revolution
and its "irreversibility" are illustrative. So is the attitude of Mr. Shevardnadze who went to Kabul in January and reassured Najib that the Soviet Union saw the Communist party as the "back bone" of the so-called policy of nationwide reconciliation.
The only route to stability is by the removal of foreign occupation and the emergence of a Government truly representative of the refugees and the Mujahideen. We hope that the Soviet Union's statements of intent mean that it is moving towards this realisation. That is in its control. It is up to the Soviet Union to withdraw its troops. There is no time to lose for the sake of the people of Afghanistan. It is their interests that count. We must not forget them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.